Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset

Carsten Bormann <> Mon, 09 April 2012 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC85321F864E for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wraIRNOlAs+u for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B6421F8780 for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q39GvLKR028885; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:57:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CCFAA18; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:57:21 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:57:20 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset
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: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:57:35 -0000

* Technical summary

This is the right thing to do, and should have been done right after the end of the UTF wars.

* Editorial issues

The document appears to spell out a SHOULD for "text/html" and "text/xml".
Does it change the meaning of text/html and text/xml?
Reading more closely, this apparently isn't meant, but there is a potential misunderstanding.

More generally:
When looking at a random media type three years from now, how do I find out whether this sentence does apply:
   It does not change the
   defaults for any currently registered media type.

Even more generally: 
Who is affected by (needs to read) this specification?
Who are the targets of the SHOULDs and MUSTs?
How do I find out whether an implementation complies?  interoperates?

And meta^3:
What is the IETF name for specifications that are exclusively intended to remind us not to make a certain class of mistake again when generating future specifications?  Which specification wins when such a meta-specification is neglected in a specific specification?

Grüße, Carsten