vendor extensions was Re: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 update

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jia Fenggen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 update


> >With regard to the names, I rather like the idea of requiring that
> >names in the non-RFC section start with a specific sequence.  I am
> >not sure I like X-, since people tend to think that they can make up
> >and use any X- name (whether they can or not.) prefixes that occur
> >to be are VND-, PRV-, or FCFS-.  Anyone have ideas / preferences?
> I think we could add some characters before the non standard track
> names,just as what tom says,SMTP has X- and SSH has @,we also could define
> ours for example YYY-,after these specified characters users could add
> their own prefix like VND-, PRV-, or FCFS-,what do you think?
> Yours,Fenggen
>
I do not see any one of the current ways of differentiating vendor extensions as
particulary attractive.  I see:

X-, x- used by MIME, URI, language tags
@ used by ssh

SMI (which I hark back to as a well-established, widely used DDL) uses a
separate prefix (1.3.6.1.4.1) for the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of vendor-defined object
types but has no convention for the textual name, except that groups of related
object types start with the same lower-case (case is significant) string.
Surprisingly, given the size that this name space has grown to, I know of no
clashes within these lower-case strings, despite there being no formal database
of them.

Tom Petch

_________________________________________________________________
> 与联机的朋友进行交流，请使用 MSN Messenger:  http://messenger.msn.com/cn