Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01

["Thomson, Martin" <[e-mail]>]

On 2010-10-26 at 09:46:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Better to make your extensibility simple.  How about having three
> > tiers of "interoperability protection":
> >
> > IP-C: Anyone can use a header with any name they choose.
> >
> > Use at own risk.
> >
> > IP-R: Anyone can register a header with any name.
> >
> > Collisions are less likely, not impossible.
> >
> > IP-S: RFCs* register headers with absolute exclusivity.
> >
> > Safe to use.
> 
> Could you compare / contrast to provisional vs. permanent
> registrations?
> The latter distinction might give us most or all of what we need
> (depending on which problem we're trying to solve).

A provisional registration would be similar to IP-R.  The only different is that two people can compete for the same name with IP-R; provisional registrations still have exclusivity.

Provisional registrations do the job pretty well.  But exclusivity seems unnecessary at this level of protection.  The main problems I was trying to address were:

 - informational registrations - it makes sense to have the registry document existing current practice, even if there is no intent to standardize a value, or intent to interoperate
 - old uses and current ones - some registrations might fall out of common use; rather than prevent the name from being picked up, this would let someone supplant the old name

> > * An standards track registration - or something similarly strong -
> > causes existing registrations for the same name get swept away.  The
> > review process can determine if this is appropriate.
> 
> Fun. :)

Can you think of a better reason?
	
--Martin

> Peter