Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application Protocols
RFC 6648
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) Recuse