Re: RFC 1590 comments

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

> You weren't asleep at the switch.  And the notion of an administrative
> procedure overruling a draft standard is, as you have observed, improper.
> Someone in the vicinity of the RFC Editor got a little to 
> (too) enthused/confused.   As someone who was listed as the
> source of many of the ideas, I was as surprised and confused as you
> were.
>     john

The RFC says:

   The registration process for Media Types (content-type/subtypes) was
   initially defined in the context of the asynchronous mail
   environments.  In this mail environment, there is a need to limit the
   number of possible Media Types to increase the likelihood of
   interoperability when the capabilities of the remote mail system are
   not known.  As Media Types are used in new environments, where the
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   proliferation of Media Types is not a hindrance to interoperability,
   the original procedure is excessively restrictive and needs to be
   generalized.

So, it is not a violation of RFC152[12] procedure for the older
environment, I think.

The problem is that I have no idea on what "new environments" means.

						Masataka Ohta

PS

The RFC says:

   tiff.  The Multimedia Internet Message Extensions (MIME) protocol [1]
              ^^^^^^^^^^