Re: [apps-discuss] text/yaml Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 81C6512D558 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HjGpxNSvTMIo for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B3DE12DAE6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.133.70.129] (unknown [166.170.29.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35FDAC40228; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:35:59 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1457631359; bh=fY/kWRMyCmHhX9tN9NcB0WUs5fdWUFYMJE5uV8gLimQ=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=bJStYD8PJ6kyKFqp2Sk6gfxygZi0ueV+Me/npDKPC2ush5VAhNR+g6cgYWikKlEYf qXnk1KXXaXUftRXfQMFQ9lUYe91+ZaiHpaZiS3aWKpOe4gPA3a/tAXLq/hasaoqtyo jgcrgbkV+f7UnMpqcQRxeTHdm8NnpAhSUqODkQnI=
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <56E145FB.5010303@tzi.org>
References: <SNT405-EAS138D1B69D14EDBB70D8B858A3B20@phx.gbl> <SNT405-EAS34588208A678723B2EDD9FA3B40@phx.gbl> <56E0CDBA.3050301@seantek.com> <4354120.g6DGuWIEuT@kitterma-e6430> <56E145FB.5010303@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:35:56 -0500
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Message-ID: <3D41BF2D-F1D3-486C-B71E-3135D1817FE0@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/M6mbsGenveBOLXtqNPbAF2RjPS8>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] text/yaml Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:36:04 -0000

I've seen the discussions on Yaml Core <yaml-core@lists.sourceforge.net>et>.

Scott K

On March 10, 2016 5:01:31 AM EST, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>I missed the YAML 2.0 activity -- do you have a pointer?
>
>What's out there is mainly YAML 1.2, and that would be the target.
>
>(I'm interested in this not only because most software I use has some
>YAML component to it, but also because YAML and CBOR have a pretty good
>feature match -- CBOR already has its JSON-based "diagnostic notation",
>but YAML as a human-oriented extension of JSON brings a lot to the
>table.)
>
>Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 09, 2016 05:28:26 PM Sean Leonard wrote:
>>> [adding apps-discuss and dispatch]
>>>
>>> On 3/9/2016 5:20 PM, Darrel Miller wrote:
>>>> Sean,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: media-types [mailto:media-types-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of
>>>>> Sean Leonard
>>>>> RFC 6838 Section 6
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-6
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC 6839 has examples of the template actually instantiated in the
>text.
>>>> Thanks. So this is where I find myself in a catch-22 situation.  In
>order
>>>> to register the +yaml suffix, it needs to there a reference to a
>>>> specification for YAML.  However, there is no such specification
>that is
>>>> managed by a SDO. I searched in the YAML Core mailing list and back
>in
>>>> 2003 they discussed their plan to use text/yaml as the media type. 
>There
>>>> has been no further discussion of registering a media type since
>then on
>>>> the list.
>>>>
>>>> So it seems that, without a spec under an SDO, it would not be
>possible to
>>>> register text/yaml or register the suffix.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the only option available would be for someone to
>convince
>>>> the YAML team to allow a variant of their spec (it has images in
>it) to
>>>> be created as an IETF spec.
>>>>
>>>> Does that reasoning appear sound?
>>> Not exactly.
>>>
>>> First of all, it's the same situation as Markdown (see the
>text/markdown
>>> discussion over time on the apps-discuss mailing list).
>>>
>>> The most important hurdle has been passed: some people actually
>*want*
>>> text/yaml.
>>>
>>> The second hurdle has also (likely) been passed: people are actually
>>> using text/yaml for YAML stuff. This turns out to be more useful
>than
>>> the registration itself. Deploy first, register later. ;-)
>>>
>>> The next hurdle is overcoming developer laziness, since it requires
>some
>>> modicum of effort to do the registration. Sounds like we have a
>willing
>>> victim...er...volunteer. ;-)
>>>
>>> Getting text/yaml just requires an Informational independent-stream
>or
>>> IETF stream RFC. First write an Internet-Draft. The Internet-Draft
>can
>>> reference the yaml.org specification, without changing control over
>the
>>> specification to the IETF. Then submit the draft to the dispatch
>mailing
>>> list. (Maybe also a couple of other mailing lists, for places in
>IETF
>>> that use YAML.)
>>>
>>> Depending on the outcome of the discussion, either the IETF will
>take it
>>> up, or not. If they do, then the media type registration will be
>>> published with IETF Consensus (see text/markdown). If not, then it
>can
>>> still be published an the independent stream by submitting it to the
>>> Independent Submissions Editor (see image/bmp, aka
>>> draft-seantek-windows-image)
>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/>.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have not tried to register a structured syntax suffix before.
>>> Superficially, the process appears to be simpler, as it only needs
>>> Expert Review. For that, just follow what RFC 6838 Section 6 says.
>> 
>> Are we talking YAML 1.0, YAML 1.1, or the draft YAML 2.0 that's
>currently 
>> being specified?  Does it matter?
>> 
>> Scott K
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>apps-discuss mailing list
>apps-discuss@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss