ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-03-06 23:58:24
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Mark Nottingham
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:11 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Randall Gellens; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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