Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application Protocols
draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-05

[Ballot discuss]
While I don't think the changes being discussed are likely to go beyond editorial, I would like to see a mostly stable document before we approve it.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Ralph terminology comment. I also find confusing the repeated usage of the phrase 'deprecating a convention (or construct)' where in fact there is no specific place in standard-track or BCP RFCs where such a convention or construct was clearly articulated. I would have found more clear if instead of this the document would have pointed to an explicit list of conventions or constructs that are NOT RECOMMENDED.

[Ballot comment]
This text:

2.  Recommendations for Implementers of Application Protocols

  Implementers of application protocols MUST NOT treat the general
  categories of "standard" and "non-standard" parameters in
  programatically different ways within their applications.

while probably not harmful, is sufficiently vague and refers to
undefined terms in a way as to contribute, perhaps, more confusion
than value.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd for the document.
I personally reviewed it and I believe it is ready for IESG review.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

I believe the document had sufficient number of reviews from the WG.
No concerns about the depth of the reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns of this kind.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here.

No concerns.

        Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

No IPR disclosure was filed on this document.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

I believe the document has reached rough consensus in the WG.
There were some people who expressed their disagreement about
scope or general directions, but I think their comments were
addressed. Some other participants might remain unhappy, but
I think they are in the rough.


(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threat of appeal was indicated.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Id-nits 2.12.13 is mostly happy with the document.
All Informative references to obsolete documents are intentional.

No other specialized reviews are needed.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?

Yes, the references are properly split.

        Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All references are to published RFCs.
There are no Downrefs.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section exists and correctly doesn't request
any actions from IANA.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

The document doesn't use ABNF, XML, etc. so no formal language fragment
validation is needed.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary
        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
        and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
        an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
        or introduction.

Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols
have often distinguished between "standard" and "non-standard"
parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or similar
constructions.  In practice, this convention causes more problems
than it solves.  Therefore, this document deprecates the "X-"
convention for newly defined textual parameters in application
protocols.

  Working Group Summary
        Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
        example, was there controversy about particular points or
        were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
        rough?

The WG discussed the scope of the document, in particular if it
intends to change any existing IANA registries which use "X-"
namespace (or similar) and whether it applies to registries that
use numeric values. As per WG discussion, the answer to both
questions above is "no" and the document was clarified to reflect
that.

  Document Quality
        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
        implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
        merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
        e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
        conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
        there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
        what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
        review, on what date was the request posted?

The document doesn't define a protocol. At least 1 specification already
voluntarily conforms to the recommendations specified in the document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

Subject: Last Call:  (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice





The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group

WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:

- 'Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols'

  as a Best Current Practice



The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits

final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-15. Exceptionally, comments may be

sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the

beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.



Abstract





  Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols

  have often distinguished between "standard" and "non-standard"

  parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or similar

  constructions.  In practice, this convention causes more problems

  than it solves.  Therefore, this document deprecates the "X-"

  convention for textual parameters in application protocols.









The file can be obtained via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash/



IESG discussion can be tracked via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash/ballot/





No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.