Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-xdash-03.txt

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

30.08.2011 19:20, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/17/11 8:53 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>>> 13.08.2011 18:52, Ned Freed wrote:
>>>>> I think your document should be clear whether it affects the "vnd."
>>>>> construction, used, eg., as I remember, in MIME media types and
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>> The answer to that is "no", by definition. The unregistered (x-/x.)
>>> tree
>>>> is 100% disjoint from the vendor, personal, and standard trees.
>>> So this could and should be mentioned in the document.
>> Not sure I see why. Listing all the extant things the document doesn't
>> apply to
>> is going to be a long list.
> Agreed. However, I think a paragraph like this would be appropriate in
> the IANA Considerations section:
>
>     This document does not modify registration procedures currently in
>     force for various application protocols.  However, such procedures
>     might be updated in the future to incorporate the best practices
>     defined in this document.

I agree with such text.

>
>> That said, I actually object to what this document currently says about
>> media
>> types: It is flatly incorrect to characterize the vnd. tree as being for
>> "local or implementation-specific extensions". On the contrary, vnd.
>> exists so
>> that vendors can define formats with some degree of interoperability and
>> some
>> understanding of the security considerations, but without having to fully
>> standardize them. As such, they aren't local, they aren't
>> implementation-specific, and they aren't extensions.
> Ned, you are right. I've removed that clause from point 3 in Section 4:
>
>     SHOULD identify a convention to allow local or implementation-
>     specific extensions, and reserve delimeters as necessary.

I'm fine with this change as well.

> [ . . . ]
> Peter