IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 25 January 2012 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
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 0553E21F84FC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:33:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQYSqeBWPPkr for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03DA21F84F9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:33:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:33:23 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:33:23 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:33:22 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
Thread-Index: Aczbn+Yfs3FtnQzVSEGpMvQBV/TSAAAAGBkw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7D9A7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <4F1F1A72.1090302@isode.com> <FAD2FBBB-E679-4867-81E6-3F1C472BCF04@vpnc.org> <010501ccdb43$16dd5ec0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7D99E@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F2065E9.3000209@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4F2065E9.3000209@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
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, 25 Jan 2012 20:33:25 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:28 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
> 
> Why drop the "X-" on existing parameters? Yes, that wasn't such a great
> idea, but the parameters exist, so there's no need to change them.

I guess I'm thinking of those applications that produce X- fields where nothing (apparently) consumes them in an automated way.  In those cases, renaming and registering is harmless.

Those that do need a transition plan, which is typically "accept/expect either form" in my experience.

v2.2.1 | Report a Bug | By Email