Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 25 January 2012 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E8011E808E for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:28:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.429
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IpbHl5vUtj9x for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BEC11E8087 for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A01AE40058; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:38:12 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:28:25 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
References: <> <> <> <010501ccdb43$16dd5ec0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:28:28 -0000

On 1/25/12 12:43 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> [] On Behalf Of t.petch Sent:
>> Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:24 AM To: Paul Hoffman; Alexey
>> Melnikov Cc: Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC
>> on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
>> And, to be expected really, this I-D fails to consider migration;
>> what is going to happen now to those 15 X- headers and all the
>> others that are in other e-mails?  Where is your migration plan?
> I think it's there in plain sight: Drop the "X-" and register them.

Why drop the "X-" on existing parameters? Yes, that wasn't such a great
idea, but the parameters exist, so there's no need to change them.
Please note what Section 6 ("IANA Considerations") states:

   This document does not modify registration procedures currently in
   force for various application protocols.  However, such procedures
   might be updated in the future to incorporate the best practices
   defined in this document.

> I think it's also clear that this can't affect deployed software that
> actually looks for "X-" fields, but rather encourages new
> implementations of things to avoid this practice.  Seems perfectly
> reasonable to me.

Yes, and the recommendations for creators of new parameters (Section 3)
and for protocol designers (Section 4) are intentionally worded in terms
of new parameters and protocols, not existing ones.

> If the document doesn't already say something like that, I agree that
> it would be a useful thing to say.

It already does.


Peter Saint-Andre