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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 09 April 2012 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 EC85321F864E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wraIRNOlAs+u for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B6421F8780 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q39GvLKR028885; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:57:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p54899DC6.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.157.198]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (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 <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9874@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:57:20 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7569D7B-F1C9-45B6-8066-6BC8149B00E4@tzi.org>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9874@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset
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: 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