Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited

Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> Wed, 29 June 2011 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dpranke@google.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315A811E80FE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XWxGcTJRdaPz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2778611E80F3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p5TM5iqg009634 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1309385145; bh=xkeuZxk9Bq5HBStYKgPs1B/W+1E=; h=MIME-Version:Sender:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID: Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=CdLlIlVZKyh8nEFmcdYlvgEBcZVgia793AVXbIQy+gJWzRRmCp24XM3YvYnUyRt97 /g2/LeVH99bnJoffzZgIQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from: date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=noR7OFu+xPh0GGtXm/cm7eVCg/XnpC7TC5fjM1uf7bwSXfxbH99Z9okYHdPs4RXov 3vOXQJOyOr1noS6LSvQPw==
Received: from pvg7 (pvg7.prod.google.com [10.241.210.135]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p5TM5gaG012957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:43 -0700
Received: by pvg7 with SMTP id 7so1383745pvg.37 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=lzSY1o/tRYEfze/gp2zI0NX3mLY9CreOzmOxnMNuItk=; b=W7vAabzkxD17TRwMRt0ceQ+XNPJM1VR4l4RKCsbwRt1r+aRgfpHXm1ySJPRrXUw5Ib UAhaTYplqmVvpTP9MRZw==
Received: by 10.143.39.17 with SMTP id r17mr639923wfj.113.1309385142318; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dpranke@google.com
Received: by 10.142.193.2 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im>
References: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im>
From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:22 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: EVQGnIqNNiFf7F3VgoudHRR7-Eo
Message-ID: <BANLkTikOQt4k8YDv5z43SYuRcq5rzueGKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:05:47 -0000

Your draft has:

>   In some situations, segregating the name space of parameters used in
>   a given application protocol can be justified:
>   ...
>   2.  When parameter names might have significant meaning.  This case
>       is rare, since implementers can almost always find a synonym
>       (e.g., "urgency" instead of "priority") or simply invent a new
>       name.

It seems to me that a primary benefit of the "X-" convention is that
it makes unprefixed parameter names less socially acceptable; i.e.,
there's a pretty clear rule of thumb that if the name isn't X-
prefixed, it probably has seen a pass through a committee and hence it
stands at least a chance of having the same meaning in multiple
implementations.

I am concerned that if you abandon the X- practice, you will lose this
benefit and finding untainted, available parameter names might become
harder. Sure, you can often find a synonym, but it is not usually as
good as the original choice. I would hate to see things move to a
namespace land-grab like we have seen in DNS.

Has this been raised as an issue before?

-- Dirk


On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> Based on comments received to date, I've published a heavily-revised
> version of the "X-" proposal:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-xdash-00.txt
>
> Further feedback is welcome!
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>