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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

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 
technique-wise...


> 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.

Yuch.


 > 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.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net