Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited
SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 06 July 2011 19:50 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 1987D21F8B54 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 BO0zfBaTMmeA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2455621F8B74 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p66Jo9k8006629; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1309981818; bh=VKGvP4XrLd7CB8QKlu8A72qGjXrfPBiCoK3XwViYHCo=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=fQ6qKE8uLJPmcp9J0c697idojL5tV02IsAcCmZ1q11cuIHlJP5T6k1eWEc8S4Q+qI HLMB2BajmdS784b1MFqpuk/DB86+xFcX40zKFTPRI7iEQ05URbXWW+wDVQuyxSGa6g E0WwxcA/Zw79NxPrC6GbyN3dfRUZ4UvDD6ua5+MU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1309981818; bh=VKGvP4XrLd7CB8QKlu8A72qGjXrfPBiCoK3XwViYHCo=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=hZiEBgiA5gQdPd6KkCAGpd44gdCd1sjzNSBjkx8ZLEcS94CmzmbZ5YrNyPVsQZkIX 0kXa15uz+HVVADg/xJT5zNl4P/bgR0GJQAvSdNuisY8pDmCMUhTgEOPOZoBgKdn9Rv k/2ViASn4+yqXAJWQW4QzTb5SBM2mlalwbH5T02c=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110706121726.04f54f90@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:49:27 -0700
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E14A334.60500@dcrocker.net>
References: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im> <4E13DC15.2080302@stpeter.im> <4E14A334.60500@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: 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, 06 Jul 2011 19:50:38 -0000
Hi Dave, At 11:02 06-07-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: >The goal is to change normative behavior, so let's use normative >language (and I suggest changes to the ordering): > > 1. Implementers wishing to experiment with parameters that have any > potential to be standardized SHOULD generate names without the > "X-" prefix. > > 2. Authors of application protocol specifications SHOULD NOT > mandate that all parameters without the "X-" prefix need > to be registered with the IANA. > >(#2 seems odd. I don't really understand why it is needed or what >it does that's significant, given the recommendation of not using x- >parameters ever. Is there a way of stating what is desired affirmatively?) This is more of an open question; is it about standardizing the parameter or using the parameter over the Internet? If an implementer wishes to use a parameter over the Internet, generate an I-D and ask for a provisional registration. The problem with (2) is that it takes us back to the X- debate where "X-" was a way to have a parameter without IANA registration. If the goal is to explain that X- has more cost than benefits, I am fine with what the document says. For anything else, RFC 4122 derived parameters or one derived from the domain name might do. The issue with the latter can be addressed by getting a IANA registration. Regards, -sm
- [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Al Costanzo
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Tony Hansen
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dirk Pranke
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Frank Ellermann
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Eric Burger
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dirk Pranke
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Eric Burger
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Tim Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dirk Pranke
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dirk Pranke
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dirk Pranke
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Larry Masinter
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited Dirk Pranke