IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Extra] BCP 178/X- convention (was AD Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2)

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 05 January 2021 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5336F3A0907 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 01:51:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id npFaf0zzIyFo for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 01:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B2C3A08FA for <extra@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 01:51:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1609840293; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=BvMPyrdm7WuFri6rMTRT64haMzgsBrbF4PoBZGcn0vE=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=JIjomLnEo+n93cF9kD+yXtjef+mJ9LA3GukSwdGf2xgeqBcz6AqJFBEGLaxxuDYy7dsAId XxNqwQeviHA/lD0J43L+uvGd9vf8py2j82dQWCQb2zrbud9Ghpo8Am61zYe/xr5Ys/qfSi /N26yWGCqGJbk1hSG3IpkLPLjtK9oEE=;
Received: from [172.27.255.49] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.72]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <X=Q2pABqmkFq@statler.isode.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 09:51:32 +0000
To: Michael Peddemors <michael@linuxmagic.com>
Cc: extra@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwaLa+PuGWRrKTbpmDa_SWKT9ZQUEQ9dsPgXfUmTzcYAYw@mail.gmail.com> <82bda3f6-4629-42ea-bfa5-94551b7a721f@isode.com> <CALaySJ+pZNBfc9D3Auh+Z2XF6T7p5JzBfNtUTH45YBCNQrE5rg@mail.gmail.com> <d8fd9618-7f29-417b-0255-3c677c3f69f8@linuxmagic.com> <CAL0qLwaroU-vQLu5F5O3z61jiOAtsCEQp-pohDM4L=5duRCvEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <25d78ea7-33ae-5d9e-8e5a-fc0cefa7169c@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 09:51:31 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaroU-vQLu5F5O3z61jiOAtsCEQp-pohDM4L=5duRCvEw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7280C9331B3CCF924ADC9C9B"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/Lgq8-FCOJeAqefMjLHjR2leZW60>
Subject: Re: [Extra] BCP 178/X- convention (was AD Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 09:51:35 -0000

On 05/01/2021 00:39, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 12:59 PM Michael Peddemors 
> <michael@linuxmagic.com <mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com>> wrote:
>
>     Lets' talk some real world examples, and what the consensus is..
>
>     X-Archive
>     X-Attachment-Id
>     X-Auth-ID
>     X-Authority-Analysis
>     X-Auto-Response-Suppress
>     [...]
>
> BCP 178 discourages standards track documents from establishing 
> practices where an "X-" prefix means "experimental", because in 
> reality once that name is out there, it never changes.  Indeed, as you 
> point out, they're unlikely to change anytime soon, so this document 
> shouldn't make the problem worse.
To add to this: before BCP 178 none of the above could be registered, 
but now they are treated as any other header field and thus can be 
registered.
>
> The point I'm making in this comment is that this document shouldn't 
> do that with capability names.  Barry's correct that the ones starting 
> with "X" in examples are just examples and don't violate the BCP; I 
> agree, but there's enough similarity to that deprecated practice that 
> I suggest (though less urgently) avoiding it in those cases as well.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email