Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

Dave CROCKER <> Mon, 14 November 2011 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD6111E81FE; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:56:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yie-S1CBfESa; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB6D11E81FD; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAE5uMfU000703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:56:30 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:56:20 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randall Gellens <>
References: <> <p06240623cae622c69b08@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240623cae622c69b08@[]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:56:33 -0800 (PST)
Cc:, Mark Nottingham <>,, Dave Crocker <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:56:36 -0000

On 11/14/2011 10:00 AM, Randall Gellens wrote:
> To me, this text points out that sometimes people slap together an ad-hoc "x-"
> parameter, and later go for a standard version, which after wider review is
> modified to address security or other issues; the text notes that if this

I think the essence of what you've cited is that the later process produces a 
revised specification.  Hence, what is produced is not the same thing as was 
getting used.  Unfortunately the implication is a practise of re-using the name 
without any version indication, which is generally frowned upon, protocol 

> I can't help but think that we'd be better off with a middle ground, similar to
> "vnd." namespace, for ad-hoc parameters that might or might not be standardized,
> but that clearly have not been through IETF consensus.


 > One advantage is that it
> provides some impetus (however slight) to develop a standard version if it's
> useful. Another advantage is that it might provide better clues as to the source
> of and change control over the ad-hoc parameter.

At base, this would continue the core model that has proved problematic.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking