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

SIgh.

I'm really tired of one-sided arguments about X-.

X- is useful.  It's especially useful when you're defining something that you fully expect to be of limited use.  The last thing we need is for random implementors to be choosing keywords at random and (implicitly) expecting others to not chose the same keywords.

Sure, there are cases where something that was named with X- ends up being a de facto standard.  In those cases it should be okay to document that use, or even standardize it.  But there are also far too many cases when some vendor picks a keyword not beginning with X- and defines the associated semantics so haphazardly (if indeed the behavior is actually defined anywhere) that it should never be standardized.  

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-.

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