Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application Protocols
RFC 6648

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Barry Leiba) Yes

(Pete Resnick) Yes

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2012-03-12 for -03)
No email
send info
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.

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2012-03-15 for -04)
No email
send info
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.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) Recuse