RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 1:19 AM -0500 3/7/12, Paul E. Jones wrote:

 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 was quite skeptical for a while, but came around to seeing the case that trying to segregate non-standard parameters ends up creating more problems than it solves.

You're right that people will use names without an 'x' and the draft encourages this. So, we'll end up with (as I think the draft suggests), situations where 'priority' is the old, non-standard name, and 'urgency' is the new, standardized name, instead of 'x-priority' and 'priority'. But the fact is that names which start out as non-standard hacks end up being de facto standards. That's no better.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
We adore chaos because we love to produce order.
                                 --M. C. Escher
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]