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

Eric Burger wrote:
 > What is the difference between X-mumble and Eric-mumble?  Does private 
namespaces really help the fundamental problem?

I think not.  Or not much.

I keep wondering why RFC3864 [1] isn't more visible in this discussion: 
provisional registration is cheap and easy.  Where's the problem here that I'm 
not seeing?

[[
    The main requirements for a header field to be included in the
    provisional repository are that it MUST have a citable specification,
    and there MUST NOT be a corresponding entry (with same field name and
    protocol) in the permanent header field registry.
]]
-- RFC3864, section 4.2.2

#g
--

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864

Eric Burger wrote:
> Well... Is not the problem that a proprietary extension becomes standard?
> 
> What is the difference between X-mumble and Eric-mumble?  Does private namespaces really help the fundamental problem?
> 
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:58 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>>
>> --On Sunday, October 24, 2010 21:13 -0400 Tony Hansen
>> <tony@att.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The vendor and personal namespaces used for media types have
>>> an extremely low overhead as well and are pretty darn close to
>>> your "free love" level.
>> Of course, they depend on structuring the type name.
>> Optional-field in RFC 5322 Section 3.6.8 does not anticipate
>> such structuring, but does not prohibit it either (nor does it
>> prohibit "X-"; it just doesn't give it any special
>> interpretation).  I don't believe I've seen enough use of, e.g.,
>> header field names with periods in them to prevent our making
>> that sort of structuring now.  But it is a little late in the
>> game and I wonder how long such a convention would require to be
>> widely deployed and recognized.
>>
>>> I think adding such namespaces for headers would be cheap,
>>> easy to do, and would solve many of the problems people see
>>> with X-.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>> For the reasons above, I question "cheap" and "easy to do",
>> although it certainly strikes me as a good idea.
>>
>>   john
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss