Re: Enumservices categories (COMMON, X-, P-, ...)

Hi Dwayne, folks,
Short answer is: Yes, because it isn't.

The issue is not confusion with mail headers. There is a difference  
between email
headers (or even old-style proprietary MIME types) and Enumservices  
inside NAPTRs.

We already have X- Enumservices. We have had these since RFC 3761. To  
avoid
clashes, we invite folk to at least tell people what Enumservices  
they use
on the Internet, and optionally to tell them what these Enumservices do.
(Yes - this invitation is intended for everyone - including me and  
you :).

The proposal (for P- Enumservices) is quite different. These are  
Enumservices
that should never be on the Internet - no-one outside the walled  
garden should
see them. If a client DOES encounter one, it should be ignored. The  
URI may not
be interpretable outside the walled garden, so even if you think you  
know what
the Enumservice does, don't try it at home.

Contrast this with a NAPTR containing  x-voice, or x-im, or whatever.  
I know
how to handle that, it hasn't escaped from a zoo, and so I can use  
it, out
there on the Internet.

Seems to me like P- is the hidden piece in the puzzle.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 3 Mar 2008, at 20:02, Duane wrote:
> Richard Shockey wrote:
>> Chair hat off ..
>>
>> Makes sense to me ! I like it too...
>
> Does it make sense to re-use something in common usage in email to
> create an inconsistency as well?
>
> -- 
>
> Best regards,
>  Duane