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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Mark Nottingham >> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:11 PM >> To: Randy Bush >> Cc: Randall Gellens; ietf@ietf.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@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
