Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited
Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Mon, 27 June 2011 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
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 C186221F8664 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 P+GRqK4a45vV for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C8D21F865D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpc10-cmbg15-2-0-cust121.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.30.246.122] helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1QbJFa-0002CC-DT; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:21:46 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:21:45 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <05DFA786-1C32-48C9-9581-13E7DA008FAA@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
References: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:21:49 -0000
Peter, On 27 Jun 2011, at 19:36, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Based on comments received to date, I've published a heavily-revised > version of the "X-" proposal: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-xdash-00.txt > > Further feedback is welcome! One question. The draft concludes that: The foregoing considerations lead to the conclusion that segregating non-standard parameters into an "X-" ghetto has few if any benefits, and has at least one significant cost in terms of interoperability. Therefore, this document recommends against the creation of new names with the special "X-" prefix in application protocols produced within the IETF. Is the guidance aimed only at documents produced within the IETF or is the intention that it is more general guidance. For example is it saying that someone defining a private extension that they do not intend to (at least initially) to bring to the IETF should still avoid use of "X-" because forseeing the future is hard and although at definition time they do not intend to standardise it, at some future point that might happen and it could cause the interoperability problems outlined in the draft? Thanks Ben
- [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