Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Tue, 28 June 2011 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
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 DA50A11E8118 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.293, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 5f89Ix5DEn1E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DB611E8100 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj5 with SMTP id 5so441998pwj.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sYtsntMzQY2SWivDHpLw7SaIlQIqaOn5njiHKEt1BBU=; b=YKTYXTDkGlJokwttxAB3TQqGcX8rpHlGA7hDXMiWFI/7RtFSzDkZPbx7CLUbz1nkjX o1RY0EhgDN8QMeTJ3kl2VdPYtQpCxsdmIMuI777FdK/2X6nAp665SuLcjMjIf+9QoYdc 8ZzK/Sa5vpiKAeEeYX9uzmhGmcuL4qH5CgrY4=
Received: by 10.142.63.8 with SMTP id l8mr1554770wfa.12.1309288970939; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] ([70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e6sm326828pbm.87.2011.06.28.12.22.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E0A29E4.4050401@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:12 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im><05DFA786-1C32-48C9-9581-13E7DA008FAA@niven-jenkins.co.uk><4E08F623.2030803@dcrocker.net> <482874CD-5929-4111-A016-3B34F1A2DA7B@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <9CAEFAF597924B478936B2FB7B277884@upstairs>
In-Reply-To: <9CAEFAF597924B478936B2FB7B277884@upstairs>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:22:52 -0000

The only reason I have seen the use "X-" other than experimental were 
for non-standard distributions (past transition from USENET), except for 
no-delay or non-blocking I/O (i.e. "X-Non-Blocking:..." which helps 
denote not-critical).

Some servers may want to avoid botnets and catch headers like 
"X-Trends:" or other cookie monsters. On that note, maybe the "X-" 
headers are less harmful if some rules like the use of atomic names if 
they are used at all, like "X-Oxygen:".

The atomic names are well-known (universal, translatable), so servers 
then know what "X-" headers to prune, especially as an optimization 
techniques.

On 06/28/2011 10:27 AM, Al Costanzo wrote:
> Originally, if I remember, this "X-" was used by vendors, for specific 
> headers that they needed and wanted to be "ignored or not used by 
> other until possibly they were done with the design and implementation.
>
> Was it not?
>
> Al Costanzo
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" 
> <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
> To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
> Cc: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 1:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited
>
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2011, at 22:29, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2011 2:21 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> It can't be only for documents within the IETF.
>>>
>>> The entire purpose of the X- construct, when we first introduced it 
>>> in RFC822, was to support /private/ activities.
>>>
>>> It defined a safe haven for that private work, within a naming 
>>> structure defined by the equivalent of the IETF.  But 'private' 
>>> means outside the IETF.
>>>
>>> What motivates the current document is that 'safe haven' turns out 
>>> not to be nearly as important as making it easier to take the 
>>> private efforts that have become popular and make then standardized, 
>>> with the minimum transition pain.
>>
>> That's what I thought based on the initial sections of the document 
>> but the wording of the final guidance is such that it wasn't clear 
>> what was actually being recommended. I'd suggest changing the 
>> language to make it clear to non-IETF regulars that the guidance is 
>> wider than just documents produced by the IETF.
>>
>> It was the use of "produced within the IETF" that got me confused, so 
>> maybe drop it and just have "Therefore, this document recommends 
>> against the creation of new names with the special "X-" prefix in 
>> application protocols"?
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant