Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id VAA21951; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:42:13 -0500
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id VAA21887; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:42:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id VAA21875; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:42:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 14474 invoked by uid 666); 19 Mar 1998 02:43:57 -0000
Date: 19 Mar 1998 02:43:57 -0000
Message-ID: <19980319024357.14472.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: X- fields
Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu
References: <199803182226.RAA02815@spot.cs.utk.edu> <25121.890261618@munnari.OZ.AU>

Robert Elz writes:
> I think X- is a very poor way to do it, as it ties the status to the object.

This point deserves emphasis.

Changing names breaks compatibility. This is an unnecessary cost, on the
occasions when there's no need to break compatibility.

I propose that IANA delegate new non-X names upon request. This would
let people experiment with new fields (1) without risk of bumping into
other experiments and (2) without having to inflict a name change on the
community if the experiment is successful.

Are there any other proposals that achieve both #1 and #2?

---Dan
Smaller, faster, safer than inetd+tcpd. http://pobox.com/~djb/ucspi-tcp.html