Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01.txt

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:

> I am currently working on a project where one of the vendors insists on using URNs to name things that don't have registered namespaces, and without establishing any discipline to ensure uniqueness of the names. I might be able to convince them to use a namespace beginning with X-.  If this document were published as an RFC they would insist on not using a namespace beginning with X-.

RFC 3406 actually discusses both x- URNs and informal namespaces.  See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3406#section-3.1 .  Note that informal namespaces
are very rare (I can see only RFC-6050-to-be in the registry).  Whether x-
namespaces are more common or not is hard to say.  I have never seen one in
the wild.

regards,

Ted

>
> I don't think it's at all appropriate for this document to retroactively change the behavior of every protocol now using X-.  The consequences of using unregistered or poorly designed extensions are not the same for all protocols.
>
> I do think that maybe the "we won't ever standardize X-" rule is poorly stated.  I'm okay with standardizing a keyword that begins with X- if the facility associated with the keyword is found to be generally useful and if, in general, it seems to be used consistently in the wild.   Really we can already do that.   A community consensus action can always override another community consensus action.
>
> But unilaterally declaring X- harmful, IMO, goes too far.
>
> Keith
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> I finally got around to updating this one. It's still incomplete, in the
>> sense that it doesn't discuss recommendations or desired changes to
>> behavior. However, I figured a revised I-D was in order because the
>> issue came up recently on the HTTPBIS list -- see thread starting here:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0105.html
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01.txt
>> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>
>>       Title           : "X-" Considered Harmful
>>       Author(s)       : P. Saint-Andre
>>       Filename        : draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01.txt
>>       Pages           : 6
>>       Date            : 2010-10-19
>>
>> Many application protocols use named parameters to represent data
>> (for example, header fields in Internet mail messages and HTTP
>> requests).  Historically, protocol designers and implementers have
>> often differentiated between "standard" and "experimental" parameters
>> by prefixing experimental parameters with the string "X-".  This
>> document argues that, on balance, the "X-" convention has more costs
>> than benefits.
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01.txt
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>> Internet-Draft.
>>
>> <draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01.txt><Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>