ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-02.txt

2002-02-10 19:45:35

On 2/10/02 at 3:06 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

Over the past 10+ years I have seen several attempts by individuals to introduce protocol extensions that would fundamentally change some aspect of how the protocol works, compromise security or privacy, or were so poorly done as to degrade interoperability - often with some "success".

The only way this happens with the introduction of *new* header fields is when UAs start interpreting the new header field. UAs that do nothing with the new field (i.e., the currently installed base) can *not* be affected by the new header field. The only way in which a existing field would cause such problems is if more UAs start interpreting that field. Unlike other protocol extensions, header fields only have an effect on protocol operation, security, or privacy when UAs actually change.

You have thus far given no demonstration that a registry would in any way increase the number of UAs using bad fields. I have given (IMHO) a cogent argument, based on historical practice, that a registry would *decrease* such occurrences.

We've had some success with other 'expedited review' processes for other kinds of protocol extensions (charsets, content-types), and I what I proposed is similar to those mechanisms.

Just to be clear:

- When many current UAs get charsets they don't know about, they fall flat on their faces and show garbage to the user.

- When some current UAs get content-types they don't know about (especially subtypes), they fall flat on their faces and show garbage to the user, or fail to show the user anything.

- When all of the current UAs that I know of get a header field that they don't know about, they ignore it.

The first two cases are damaging to the current interoperation of Internet mail. They deserve the heightened scrutiny that they get. The present case is different and cannot in a reasonable way be compared to the first two. It deserves a far lower bar.

pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>