Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:19:54 -0400

At 03:09 PM 6/5/2003 -0400, Tony Hansen wrote:

>Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>>At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote:
>>Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard 
>>gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard is 
>>approved then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is 
>>similar to the HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to 
>>indicate gzip encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5).
>
>I disagree. When you write the internet-draft, ONLY specify the CRI 
>header. X- headers should only be used for doing experiments before you 
>write the internet-draft. As soon as you enter the ietf-space, stick to 
>the real name. x-gzip was specified to handle backward compatibility 
>because there was considerable history with its use prior to the RFCs 
>being written. You don't have that problem here -- there is no history of 
>previous uses of X-CRI that needs to be supported.

The question is what do we do during the standards process until the RFC is 
approved, do we use "X-" or the regular headers?

Yakov  

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:19:31 -0400

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> The question is what do we do during the standards process until the RFC 
> is approved, do we use "X-" or the regular headers?

Simple: you write the internet draft in terms of what you expect to be 
standardized. That is, in terms of regular headers.

For example, when the MIME standard was being worked on, the internet 
drafts were written using headers such as Content-Type, etc. They were 
NOT written using X-Content-Type, and the name changed right before 
publication. It was specified as Content-Type all along.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]