Re: [TLS] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-01

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 22 August 2013 14:19, Stephan Friedl (sfriedl) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 1.      We will fix the typos.
> 2.      We will remove the HTTP/2.0 registration.  Martin can add the registration to the IANA Considerations section of the HTTP/2.0 draft.
> 3.      We will leave the lower-case HTTP/1.1 protocol ID as it is.

Sounds good.  Thanks.

> I'd suggest that we leave the 'exp' namespace in the draft and add a statement urging anyone choosing to avail themselves of an 'exp' prefixed opaque protocol identifier to review RFC6648 and make sure they are doing the right thing.  The 'exp' namespace has been explicitly requested by a number of TLS working group members, so I'm hesitant to remove it without more voices calling out for its removal.

I don't think that your analysis places sufficient weight on the cost
of changing names.  The experience that lead to the publication of
6648 shows that renaming doesn't happen in practice.  In this case,
there is also a size pressure that prevents the use of multiple names
for the same thing.

The key problem with X- or exp is that both carry zero semantics, but
they tend to create name-ghettos as a result of implementations that
explicitly ignore names with these prefixes.

Keeping 'exp' would be choosing the preferences of a small few over
IETF consensus on this matter.