Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 ABAD211E8215 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 57n31WT5Hm61 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A29C11E820F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38BA1E06E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:34 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= cryptonector.com; b=x0SFFiFGt7xrYfDxCH9lMFp1b46olX1pMTs1NJZa4aKi diCmLrxCxCEANAjZwTe9w9NKH42AutilfXWs9dBnQOSMUaZLLdrYkMhqRsF62mSd Sa4r9AyDGTct8upeo6ajjl1A1WdegMi8o4/3Lm+U5h3CMhcgx/3z+r4J895HnAA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=bBsDzhKKAMZGG1CxrWhLqgQdLMA=; b=PpcHi86Fz8e i/CJZW+tIgl6LOyfuRzW4oF1ZsljZ2Lpz1Ixd7xal+r6DA4+kPGtqb8088z2fsjv EWnKpYtGH7SvE7Km1Hfhrq+IZFhKc5luaNyfS60UihvOJncp7XRVUOdNCcckj6GF +8pfcRPysY30o4FycOeLJeZ8Zam2LFAs=
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CFEC1E06C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnr5 with SMTP id r5so1595335ggn.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.38.68 with SMTP id e4mr52565428pbk.126.1321308693721; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.40.162 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:11:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01O8ETX0DJ4U00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0BE9E.8020702@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAK3OfOiEfX3duaWSAZZ9T+pb9UofceH_xXW2SCBnyjLHeHHe4Q@mail.gmail.com> <01O8ETX0DJ4U00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:11:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiWmYxbANidbMiT3aJ6ES=mc0Gi_vvMB3bw-eQvaTcQQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)
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, 14 Nov 2011 22:11:35 -0000

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
>> >> * DO NOT try to avoid duplicates
>> >
>> > I'm not sure this makes sense. I think it would make sense if it read "give
>> > up on trying to avoid duplicates at all cost". But it almost reads like
>> > "let's have many duplicates, this will be fun".
>
>> I think we should discourage collisions, but the very existence of the
>> registry does that.  If a collision arose from registry avoidance, and
>> implementations have been deployed widely, then what more can we do
>> but accept it?
>
> Agreed, but in practice it doesn't seem like outright collisions have
> been much of an issue.

I think what Roy F. is saying is that the cost of registration has to
come down a lot.  If collisions are a problem at all they must be a
relatively small problem, and you (and Roy F.) claim that collisions
are of little consequence, in which case we can lower the cost of
registration still more.

Nico
--