Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
The notion that people should use X-* for experiments (be them
implementation experiments or specification experiments) is quite wide
spread. Changing that notion, when there is an opportunity, seems
like a good thing.
It's perfectly fine to use X-* for experiments. What's not fine is
expecting to widely deploy and/or standardize the protocol used in those
experiments without changing it. If you want to widely deploy a field,
you need to formally define it, publish its definition, and probably
get some sort of community approval for use of that field.
I agree.
There's really no problem with X-* at all; the rules in 822 are clear.
Then what is the problem including those rules in a revised document?
That is what I have been arguing for, if that wasn't clear.
If a revision of 2822 is moved to Draft Standard, and fully obsolete
822, I don't believe that what 822 says or not matters. It would be
sufficient that the revised document acknowledge that X-* are not
discussed, if the perception is that nothing else can be agreed on.
Acting as if X-* never existed is not enlightening.
The problem is with people who think it's okay to widely deploy and/or
standardize half-baked ideas without doing either analysis or review of
those ideas. Changing how X-* is used won't address that problem.
Ignoring X-* won't address the problem either.
Thanks,
Simon