Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 15 April 2012 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 E0B2821F88B7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.484
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 SEAAnPtVQYyV for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B106121F889E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3FNKl9S022022; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1334532055; i=@resistor.net; bh=EYv6nb6Z+A7U2KYopGsZvw3JMLHyZmEzefztj4uge9A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AT5/9UkDOBmOf1WIMpLy/dJwiF39XJ5lHl1a/dNuxR7Mi4WcFCPLppe/U+KhWix/I a/8vr4gE+3d0KdIIhP8ufI8Gj/+sNZZNJynoUXysGvYoFDZ1WVGuWzhV1KIN2qIK1x jC9L0qkeTuUruT2ByPFWhYSBZKK+Abq5xKsWPsXQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1334532055; i=@resistor.net; bh=EYv6nb6Z+A7U2KYopGsZvw3JMLHyZmEzefztj4uge9A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Oy2a2rNRkBC4NLsDYjcUB4N6KfcFjXS46KL0tUE6RVWMh71aWiDhMCaCoNhjr++Rg o8ccCccZ6zld7kWzM/x/hNT6uwoFamv76EyjE9Ks/LMWQ07haY01VYwQNlDB2qvdH2 lmJ8ElY8aW8kPRBzHrrfOp3SXjbxAt0ihIKvwLxo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120415153915.092fbb50@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:59:48 -0700
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <01OECNUHC01O00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120412232341.0ae76d78@elandnews.com> <01OECNUHC01O00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:21:02 -0000

Hi Ned,

Thanks for the explanation you provided.

At 14:12 15-04-2012, Ned Freed wrote:
>Actually, it does no such thing. A document that has to be approved 
>by the IESG
>is more or less by definition going to be a consensus document, since a key
>aspect of the IESG's job is to assess consensus. Your proposed change actually
>makes things less aligned.

Ok.

>Wrong again, I'm afraid. A document can be approved but not published. That's

Ok. :-)

>This document isn't registering it. The tree already exists; this document
>simply isn't removing it. I'm not inclined to remove it because we 
>have no idea
>if it's in use or not (I suspect it's not, but my suspicions are not 
>evidence),

Please leave it.

>It's probably a bit too strict, but I'll go ahead and do this. I can always
>back it out if there are objections.

I'll leave it to others to provide input on this (Section 4.2.8).

>This must already be fixed because I cannot find it.

 From the diff of -05, I see that it has been fixed.

>I prefer application. But it does need to be plural.

Ok.

>Can't find this one either.

It's fixed in -05.

>That was intentionally changed in the other direction. We don't really want to
>encourage a flood of RFCs containing the vendor format du jour.

I misinterpreted that text.

>You're proposing a specific mechanism, one of many possible mechanisms. It is
>completely inappropriate to restrict this to one mechanism or even suggest a
>mechanism - the key point is that IANA has the right to copy, not how it is
>done.

Ok.

>No, actually, it's not. We'll be consulting with IANA before final publication
>on what changes need to be made to the web form. That will be the time to
>change the URL, assuming such a change is needed.

Ok.

>Thanks for the review; sorry I didn't get to it before posting -05.


It's alright.  BTW, there isn't a sentence in the Abstract or 
Introduction in -05 about this document obsoleting RFC 4288.  That 
may have to be added.

Regards,
-sm