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

Scott Kitterman <> Thu, 10 March 2016 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C6512D558 for <>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HjGpxNSvTMIo for <>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B3DE12DAE6 for <>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35FDAC40228; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:35:59 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; 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: <>
References: <SNT405-EAS138D1B69D14EDBB70D8B858A3B20@phx.gbl> <SNT405-EAS34588208A678723B2EDD9FA3B40@phx.gbl> <> <4354120.g6DGuWIEuT@kitterma-e6430> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Scott Kitterman <>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:35:56 -0500
To: Carsten Bormann <>
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] text/yaml Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:36:04 -0000

I've seen the discussions on Yaml Core <>et>.

Scott K

On March 10, 2016 5:01:31 AM EST, Carsten Bormann <> 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
>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 [] On Behalf
>>>>> Sean Leonard
>>>>> RFC 6838 Section 6
>>>>> RFC 6839 has examples of the template actually instantiated in the
>>>> Thanks. So this is where I find myself in a catch-22 situation.  In
>>>> 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
>>>> 2003 they discussed their plan to use text/yaml as the media type. 
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> discussion over time on the apps-discuss mailing list).
>>> The most important hurdle has been passed: some people actually
>>> 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
>>> the registration itself. Deploy first, register later. ;-)
>>> The next hurdle is overcoming developer laziness, since it requires
>>> modicum of effort to do the registration. Sounds like we have a
>>> ;-)
>>> Getting text/yaml just requires an Informational independent-stream
>>> IETF stream RFC. First write an Internet-Draft. The Internet-Draft
>>> reference the specification, without changing control over
>>> specification to the IETF. Then submit the draft to the dispatch
>>> list. (Maybe also a couple of other mailing lists, for places in
>>> 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
>>> still be published an the independent stream by submitting it to the
>>> Independent Submissions Editor (see image/bmp, aka
>>> draft-seantek-windows-image)
>>> <>.
>>> 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
>> being specified?  Does it matter?
>> Scott K
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>apps-discuss mailing list