Re: [apps-discuss] [happiana] draft-freed-media-type-regs-01 comments

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 09 November 2011 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 9EE3311E809A; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:54:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.83
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 nat7wzQdx+ZW; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBAD11E8080; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E26CA41FC7; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:59:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4EBB1296.1090803@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:53:58 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <01O827GOAJG200XBUL@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EB68E47.5010807@gmx.de> <01O83KX13YW800XBUL@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01O83KX13YW800XBUL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "happiana@ietf.org" <happiana@ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [happiana] draft-freed-media-type-regs-01 comments
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, 09 Nov 2011 23:54:04 -0000

On 11/6/11 11:47 AM, Ned Freed wrote:

<snip/>

>> - 4.2 - "X-" prefixes - this obviously should be coordinated with
>> Peter's document.

draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash, that is. It's not only my draft, since I have 
two capable co-authors helping me. :)

> Er, actually, it rather obviously should not. Peter's draft is focused on
> preventing *new* uses of the X- convention. It doesn't address the issue of
> what to do about existing x- usage, which is a rather naunced and tricky
> area.
>
> Now, if you want to argue that Peter's draft should address how to deal
> with
> existing x- usage in various places, well, that's a discussion you need
> to have
> to have elsewhere. If and when that happens it may make sense to refer to
> such a document. Or not - it would depend on what it said.

We've deliberately punted on that issue in draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash, 
which does *not* modify registration procedures for any existing registries.

> In any case, the current approach taken to the X- issue here is to:
>
> (1) Strongly discourage the use of such names.

At which point an informational reference to draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash 
might be appropriate (for those who want a more detailed treatment of 
the topic).

> (2) In the event such a name gets widely deployed in spite of it's lack
> of registration, allow it to be registered in the vnd. tree.
>
> This wasn't noted in the changes since the last version list and I have
> addressed that.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/