I suppose one could argue that X- should never be on the Public Internet, anyway. But they are. If we remove X-, then what will happen is developers will use names that don't have X-. Will that make things better? No. I'd argue it will make it worse. Non-standard extensions do present issues, that's no in question. However, killing X- will only mean other values will be used. At least X- can be ignored. I'm not going to throw up a roadblock to the draft. Call for the end of X- if you want, but I know it will not stop introduction of non-standard values in protocols, so a problem will remain. One way to help this is to get standards through the IETF faster. Some take forever. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:57 AM > To: Paul E. Jones > Cc: 'Randy Bush'; 'Randall Gellens'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use > of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice > > Yes, but (as the draft tries to explain) putting this kind of metadata in > a name is prone to issues, because it can change -- i.e., when a header > (or other protocol element) becomes standard. > > > On 07/03/2012, at 4:54 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: > > > But it does clue one in immediately to the fact that the parameter is > > non-standard. > > > > Paul > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > >> Of Mark Nottingham > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:11 PM > >> To: Randy Bush > >> Cc: Randall Gellens; ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> > >> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best > >> Current Practice > >> > >> > >> On 07/03/2012, at 1:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> > >>>> To me, the target of that language is software that generically > >>>> treats protocol elements beginning with "x-" in a fundamentally > >>>> different way, without knowledge of its semantics. That is broken, > >>>> causes real harm, and I have seen it deployed. > >>> > >>> clue bat please? is there any general semantic to X-? > >> > >> > >> I think one of the main points of the draft is to answer that > >> question with "no." > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf