Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations (was: Re: A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes))

Ned Freed <> Tue, 15 November 2011 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E591F0DA9 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:38:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.429
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNGkYSkmQH+e for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:38:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085501F0DB0 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:38:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:35:48 -0800
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:43:51 +0900" <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"
References: <> <> <> <>
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Cc: Roy Fielding <>, Ned Freed <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations (was: Re: A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes))
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:38:38 -0000

> Hello Ned, others,

> On 2011/11/15 4:33, Ned Freed wrote:

> >> > ENCOURAGE the public to register any names that they have seen in
> >> > deployed software. (same for URI schemes)
> >
> >> I think third-party registration is indeed something we should encourage
> >> more.
> >
> > How do you propose we do that?

> It seems that currently, people don't even know that it is possible. So
> the first step is to make this more known. On another list, you write:
> "We have always allowed registrations by any interested party." That's
> apparently true, but is it done because nowhere in RFC 4288 it says it's
> not possible? Then making it explicit in draft-freed-media-type-regs
> should help.

Seems like a good idea to me. I'll see what I can come up with. Unfortunately
we're in draft-blackout so I can't post a revision.

> For example, you could put in a section 4.12, (Non-)Requirements for
> Contact Information, Author, and Change Controller, saying explicitly
> that third-party registrations are welcome.


> This could also explain what in such a case contact information, author,
> and change controller should be. I'd assume that contact information
> goes to the submitter, but change controller stays with the company or
> individual that created the format, but you'll know better what's
> current practice. If I did a third-party registration, this would be the
> place where I'd really not know which way to go.

That's nominally how it works, but I'm not strongly wedded to it as an

> You can also add pointers to that new section, or just mention the fact,
> in other places where somebody might potentially look. As an example, in
> you could say that in addition to providing comments, new registrations
> and change requests by third parties are also possible.


> The next step would then be to put text saying "Media Types may also be
> registered by third parties." or so on the relevant pages at IANA (e.g.
> and

Realistically, that's the place where it is likely to do the most good.