IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B42111E80B5; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8yYIEVpV2cEc; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEE811E809F; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODXEGIXFF40058Y9@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODX7A1LRLC00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01ODXEGFAIIY00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:38:06 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:06:06 +0200" <orkpn75ms2n5gb8en848unh8uls41er3i6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="iso-8859-1"
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <4F7C5471.8030309@bbiw.net> <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> <orkpn75ms2n5gb8en848unh8uls41er3i6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:38:50 -0000

> * Tony Hansen wrote:
> >Although draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs both mentions the use of
> >+json and defines a registry that can be used to register it, and
> >despite +json being used already in a variety of registered media types,
> >+json hasn't been formally defined yet.
> >
> >So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to
> >fill in this hole.

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04304.html

It someone wants to do this registration in an RFC, I have no objection - 
as long as the RFC in question isn't the registration document itself.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email