But it does clue one in immediately to the fact that the parameter is non-standard.
Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mark Nottingham > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:11 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: Randall Gellens; [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
