Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (Netnews Architecture and Protocols) to Proposed Standard

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Fri, 26 September 2008 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D6B28C0EE; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63933A6A8A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id icVPP3Tir7Ri for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB0F28C114 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1222436578!33432110!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 8963 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2008 13:42:59 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Sep 2008 13:42:59 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8QDgwAt004320 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:42:58 -0700
Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8QDgrwh004262 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:42:53 -0700
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8QDgqoK001476 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:42:52 -0500
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8QDgmL7001415 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:42:49 -0500
Received: from [135.210.81.178] (unknown[135.210.81.178](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20080926134247gw1003snile> (Authid: tony); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:42:48 +0000
Message-ID: <48DCE6D7.6050105@att.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:42:47 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (Netnews Architecture and Protocols) to Proposed Standard
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20080906004844.0333aff0@resistor.net> <878wtksxuk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20080923215214.030a7ce0@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20080923215214.030a7ce0@resistor.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

I admit it: I'm not a fan of X- headers.

Why not just register a header in the header registry and be done with
it, rather than encouraging yet-another set of X-headers, all possibly
named differently? Why encourage the use of X- headers in a standards
track document?

For example, consider using Netnews-Gateway-Control in place of
X-Gateway, or some other such name,

   2.  The news-to-mail gateway adds a Netnews-Gateway-Control header
       field to all messages it generates.

and then add this to the IANA Considerations section:

   Header field name: Netnews-Gateway-Control
   Applicable protocol: mail, netnews
   Status: standard
   Author/Change controller: IETF
   Specification document(s): RFC XXXX (this document)

If you'd rather define a *set* of header names, to allow implementations
to pick their own names, then use this:

   2.  The news-to-mail gateway adds a Netnews-Gateway-Control header
       field (or a header field whose name begins with
       Netnews-Gateway-Control-) to all messages it generates.

and then add this to the IANA Considerations section:

   Header field name: Netnews-Gateway-Control
   Applicable protocol: mail, netnews
   Status: standard
   Author/Change controller: IETF
   Specification document(s): RFC XXXX (this document)

   Header field name: Netnews-Gateway-Control-* (all headers whose name
	begins with "Netnews-Gateway-Control-")
   Applicable protocol: mail, netnews
   Status: standard
   Author/Change controller: IETF
   Specification document(s): RFC XXXX (this document)

My $0.02.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

SM wrote:
>> I can see your point here, but I'm not sure the lack is particularly
>> important.  I'd really rather not see us make further changes to USEFOR;
>> generally an X-* header is used for this and is adequate in practice.
> 
> Each implementation might use a different header field name.  It's might
> become a problem in future.
> 
>> Well, this is very explicitly an example based on a specific
>> implementation, which happens to use an X-* header.  But I can see where
>> this would be less than ideal.  However, as above, I'm hesitant to invent
>> a new header for this purpose and add the necessary machinery for
>> registering it when there is no standardized existing practice and it's
>> not clear what issues are involved in picking a header field,
>> standardizing its format, and so forth.
> 
> Implementors will likely pick X-Gateway as you mentioned that header
> name in the example.  Once people start using specific headers, it's
> difficult to depreciate them in favor of some standardized format.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf