Re: [apps-discuss] [happiana] draft-freed-media-type-regs-01 comments

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 09 November 2011 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE3311E809A; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:54:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.83
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nat7wzQdx+ZW; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBAD11E8080; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E26CA41FC7; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:59:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:53:58 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [happiana] draft-freed-media-type-regs-01 comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:54:04 -0000

On 11/6/11 11:47 AM, Ned Freed wrote:


>> - 4.2 - "X-" prefixes - this obviously should be coordinated with
>> Peter's document.

draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash, that is. It's not only my draft, since I have 
two capable co-authors helping me. :)

> Er, actually, it rather obviously should not. Peter's draft is focused on
> preventing *new* uses of the X- convention. It doesn't address the issue of
> what to do about existing x- usage, which is a rather naunced and tricky
> area.
> Now, if you want to argue that Peter's draft should address how to deal
> with
> existing x- usage in various places, well, that's a discussion you need
> to have
> to have elsewhere. If and when that happens it may make sense to refer to
> such a document. Or not - it would depend on what it said.

We've deliberately punted on that issue in draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash, 
which does *not* modify registration procedures for any existing registries.

> In any case, the current approach taken to the X- issue here is to:
> (1) Strongly discourage the use of such names.

At which point an informational reference to draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash 
might be appropriate (for those who want a more detailed treatment of 
the topic).

> (2) In the event such a name gets widely deployed in spite of it's lack
> of registration, allow it to be registered in the vnd. tree.
> This wasn't noted in the changes since the last version list and I have
> addressed that.

Thanks for the clarifications.


Peter Saint-Andre