Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:43 PM
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of t.petch
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:24 AM
> > To: Paul Hoffman; Alexey Melnikov
> > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
> >
> > And, to be expected really, this I-D fails to consider migration; what
> > is going to happen now to those 15 X- headers and all the others that
> > are in other e-mails?  Where is your migration plan?
>
> I think it's there in plain sight: Drop the "X-" and register them.
>
> I think it's also clear that this can't affect deployed software that actually
looks for "X-" fields, but rather encourages new implementations of things to
avoid this practice.  Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> If the document doesn't already say something like that, I agree that it would
be a useful thing to say.

I do not see it in the I-D, about what, if anything, this I-D expects to change
with the parameters currently in use.  The sort of parameters I have in mind are
those that appear in the header of the e-mail you originated, such as

X-BigFish:
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report:
X-Original-To:
X-Virus-Scanned:
X-SpamScore:
X-Spam-Flag:
X-Spam-Score:
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status:
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-BeenThere:
X-Mailman-Version:
X-FOPE-CRA-Verdict:

As far as I know, none of them make any difference to what I experience as a
mail user and I would be just as happy if a passing MTA stripped them all out -
which with X- it might consider doing, whereas without, it could not take the
risk.  In fact, I would love to see them stripped out, reducing the amount of
data I download and store:-)

Tom Petch

> > And what about all the other private portions of namespaces that are
> > designated with something other than X-?  Will you produce an edict
> > prohibiting them as well?
>
> The abstract says that this "causes more problems than it solves."  Do you
envision some other solution to those problems?
>
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>