Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed base-04 changes based on AD feedback

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 17:58:23 -0400

An issue has come up in AD review and last call of the MARF base document
( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-marf-base )
...and I think the question needs to be brought back to the working
group because I'm not aware of any explicit discussion of it.

In section 5, we have this text, which has been there since the
working group -00 version (it was not in the pre-working-group
versions):

   Additional report types (extension report types) or report header
   fields might be defined in the future by later revisions to this
   specification, or by registrations as described above.  Extension
   report types and report header field names beginning with "x-" will
   never be defined as standard; such names are reserved for
   experimental use.  Report types and report header field names not
   beginning with "x-" MUST be registered as described above and
   published in an Open Specification such as an RFC.

   Implementations using new report types or new report header fields
   MUST use the "x-" prefix until such time as the new name is
   registered by IANA.

The issue is that it's questionable whether making this "x-"
reservation is a good idea.  In the revisions of RFC 822, it was
decided that the long-standing presence of it there was very much NOT
a good idea, in fact.

History, for those who weren't here: In the DRUMS effort
( http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/drums )
there was a looooong discussion related to whether or not to carry
forward the RFC 822 "x-" header text into what would become RFC 2822.
The conclusion, the DRUMS WG consensus, was to drop it, because it
causes more problems than it solves.  It solves the problem of having
a bad idea or a poor implementation grab the good or obvious name,
then requiring the good implementation to use a sub-optimal name.

But once there's significant deployment of any feature, it's very
disruptive to change it.  So what happened with RFC 822 was that
people either ignored the requirement and used a non-X-name from the
start (like "Importance" and "Priority"), or the X-name stuck, and
just didn't get registered.  So RFC 2822 (and now 5322) say nothing at
all about names with "X-".

The same situation could come up here, and it's arguable that it's a
bad idea to start things out with X- as a reserved, non-registerable
prefix.

Because for this document the "x-" language has been in there since
the -00 WG version, it has WG consensus based purely on having been
there and not being objected to.  But without specific discussions
about it, it has no *explicit* WG consensus.

I'm asking the working group, therefore, to discuss it specifically,
and come to explicit consensus: either agree that the existing text is
what the group wants there, despite the related DRUMS history, or
revise those two paragraphs to remove the "x-" special case.

Discussion is now open.

Barry, as chair

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 18:12:56 -0400

This feature was added only in the first MARF draft. All drafts prior
to Jan 2010 did not use "x-".

I also went back and rechecked the archive and it seems that there was
no discussion on this. My personal thoughts is to follow whatever the
IESG feels is best for this.

Yakov

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> marf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:45:36 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:58 PM
> To: Message Abuse Report Format working group
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov
> Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed base-04 changes based on AD feedback
> 
> [...] 

I'd be fine with removing it.  I think I added it back when I inherited the document, and it came in as a side effect of the Security Directorate review of RFC5451 which recommended its addition.  That reviewer may not have had the benefit of knowing the DRUMS debate and outcome, so perhaps adding it wasn't such a good idea.

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:23:08 -0400

+1 to removing X-*.

-- 
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 May 2010 15:40:59 -0000

>I'd be fine with removing it.  I think I added it back when I inherited
>the document, and it came in as a side effect of the Security
>Directorate review of RFC5451 which recommended its addition.  That
>reviewer may not have had the benefit of knowing the DRUMS debate and
>outcome, so perhaps adding it wasn't such a good idea.

Agree with both the history and getting rid of x-

I suppose it would be more trouble than it's worth to ask them
what changed since 5451.

R's,
John

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 22:57:43 -0400

[Putting this back in this thread, to get rid of the split.  John,
please don't keep splitting threads unless there really are two
parallel discussions that need to be separated.]

> I suppose it would be more trouble than it's worth to ask them

I suspect it's just a question of nobody's having noticed it when 5451
went through.  The secdir reviewer asked for the change, Murray
complied, and it didn't get noticed.

This time, it did.

Barry

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 23:01:58 -0400

> complied, and it didn't get noticed.

As a separate note, is there going to be some sort of a note on IESG's
site or perhaps an RFC so people are aware that "x-" is not a good
thing for future standards?

Yakov

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 23:18:19 -0400

[Adding Alexey to the distribution.]

> thing for future standards?

Alexey: Would the IESG consider an IESG Statement about this?  Or
should someone kick off a "X- Prefixes Considered Harmful" RFC ?

Barry

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:53:36 +0100

>should someone kick off a "X- Prefixes Considered Harmful" RFC ?
Sorry for the late reply.
I think publishing a "X- Prefixes Considered Harmful" RFC would be a 
better way to go. At this point I am not entirely sure if IESG has a 
united view on this (I haven't asked), so some public discussion of this 
would be helpful.

Peter said that he will help with this. So would I.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:55:10 -0700

> Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:54 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Peter Saint-Andre; Message Abuse Report Format working group

I'll help too if needed.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:09:51 -0600

>> Peter said that he will help with this. So would I.

I think it will end up being a very short document, perhaps only a few
pages, but feedback will be welcome. Alexey and I will sketch out an
Internet-Draft at the IESG retreat next week.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/