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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 29 June 2011 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 64A7121F868A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 Pk8Hwjuk3cXi for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.20.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9483321F8688 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.20.226]) by acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p5T7S5h5026468 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:28:05 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 406c_fdc4_545a0ca4_a221_11e0_b748_001d096c5b62; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:28:05 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:51400) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S152502D> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:28:00 +0900
Message-ID: <4E0AD3EB.6070403@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:27:39 +0900
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:28:21 -0000

Hello Peter,

I see:

    To preserve interoperability, newer implementations simply support
    the "X-" name forever, which means that the non-standard name becomes
    a de facto standard (thus obviating the need for segregation of the
    name spaces in the first place).  As one example, we can see this
    phenomenon at work in [RFC2068] (similar examples can be found in
    [RFC5064]):

I would want to propose a tiny change to the last phrase:

"similar examples" -> "a similar example"

(because it's only about one header, and there are no actual examples of 
the X- header in usage).


I'd also want to point out that I consider the
     X-Archived-At -> Archived-At
transition in many ways the 'ideal' success story for a X- prefix. But 
the success was due to some very special circumstances:

- When Archived-At was standardized, it was used only at two (very big)
   places, and these were willing and able to switch over extremely
   quickly.
- Usage is mainly by individuals, with "software update" possible by
   settings in MUAs and the like, which made the transition easy on
   the receiving side.
- There was somebody (me) who was willing to go through all the red
   tape, deal with people who claimed that it was totally useless, and
   so on.

Regards,   Martin.


On 2011/06/28 3:36, 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!
>
> Peter
>