Re: [apps-discuss] +exi

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Fri, 10 February 2012 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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 C781B21E801A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:20:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.861
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.262, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XipVwcEzl6tt for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5206721F88B8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2012 20:20:36 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-222-139-046.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.222.139.46] by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 10 Feb 2012 21:20:36 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+3YMgQA5K3hA3owlNdzNDJ8laRvOLOh1zUNa6BTX k2q2mCMtPp06jz
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:20:37 +0100
Message-ID: <hnuaj7hjvc3l168s7j5h634530ecfq1j41@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <CB59D465.18D85%psaintan@cisco.com> <86F0E68C-8D18-4F9A-86C5-0CC93D406238@sensinode.com> <4F357924.2070705@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4F357924.2070705@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: paduffy@cisco.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Thomas Herbst <therbst@silverspringnet.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] +exi
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:20:39 -0000

* Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>Section 7 of RFC 3023 (XML media type) might be helpful:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3023#section-7
>
>I was hoping that RFC 4627 has something similar for JSON, but I don't
>see it there.

Last I heard the idea was that draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs would
formalize the `+example` convention, but someone would have to write the
registration for `+json` separately. That has not happened yet as far as
I am aware. I argued that draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs should re-
gister already established conventions like `+json`, but apparently I
was unsuccessful.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/