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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 7/6/11 5:02 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 6/27/11 12:36 PM, 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
>>
>> Based on list feedback, I've submitted a further revision (including
>> much more specific recommendations for spec authors and implementers):
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-xdash-01.txt
>>
>> Keep those cards and letters coming! ;-)
> 
> Hi Peter,
> I'm interested in the "Recommendations" section and two things appear curious:
> 
>  "4.  Implementers wishing to experiment with parameters that are
>        unlikely to be standardized are encouraged to generate
>        meaningless names such as UUIDs or the output of a hash function."
> 
> Why?  It's not clear to me why names with obfuscated meaning is better
> or worse than an X- prefix (or any other name) - when they are clearly
> not intended for standardization?  Can you share more about *why*
> that's encouraged?

I don't know if they're obfuscated, instead I see them as truly "wild"
experiments to see if an idea is worth exploring in a more serious
manner. Someone could just as well come up with a nonsense word if they
please.

>    5.  Implementers wishing to create parameters for use in
>        implementation-specific applications or on private networks are
>        encouraged to mint URIs or generate names that incorporate the
>        relevant organization's name or primary domain name.
> 
> Not sure if this is atypical for a spec like this but an example or
> two would help for #5.  Is the intent something like:
> urn:com:example:headers:myheader
> or
> http://example.com/headers/myheader
> or
> headers:example.com/myheader
> 
> or, it just doesn't matter?

There are examples earlier in the document. I'm happy to add examples
for each of the recommendations in that section so that people can just
read the recommendations without all the background. :)

> FWIW, I'd also suggest substituting "subclass" or somesuch in the
> following in the place of "ghetto":
> 
> "   Therefore it appears 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."

Yes, that's better.

I'll push out a revised I-D before the Monday cutoff, incorporating
whatever other feedback people provide.

Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/