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

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.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 003C111E81EF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:29:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 n1PUHxxjRcgK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4059511E8164 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so3499508wwe.13 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:29:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FHVbSZ/eTiHf/nMMx6k5+1wfR8hqdALI4L7JqbidfhM=; b=sygY7X9/gOqTQEw+RtFubGNuEtI/DWbettlzZjOpASC9c4oLasT5DXVy+yWvV+8uBp +EIQnx0OR0le63cUJXSnFy2r2MELuca6d3U2iu6oY1vRXwHkSWr9RCBeXX+v/d5x0qa8 Xmj3W1ysuYrLrGEiu16sbr9B8+rY+iLGjQ34s=
Received: by 10.216.230.90 with SMTP id i68mr1394450weq.73.1321298994160; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:29:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.184.147 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:29:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOg2oRZVYG=smzYBcjHJSLkRGxz=pDG7318Ffiq46xmyag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <CAHhFybpTQ2tNdNxqF-ZhOASyo6KRANPEOh0VzCQyoTmm_fz_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOg2oRZVYG=smzYBcjHJSLkRGxz=pDG7318Ffiq46xmyag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:29:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHhFybqigYoCvx2-iwtpfF2+15ivN5ohpAODUcLtkDwoLLboJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "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 19:29:56 -0000

On 14 November 2011 19:56, Nico Williams wrote:

>> in the real world the "secret mission" of the IETF
>> is IMHO to protect the IANA from "patent nonsense".

> I assume you're not referring to patents here (as in IPR).

"Patent nonsense" is one of the reason for a "speedy
deletion" in Wikipedia.  IANA is not a Wikipedia, it
has no "recent change patrol" to revert vandalism or
controversial "bold" registrations.

> I think IANA can jufge frivolous requests.  If not
> we can require enough review to filter out frivolous
> requests.

That they do not not have to judge this (generally),
because there is an appointed expert and an appeal
chain independent of IANA, is a feature of most IANA
registries I'm interested in.

>From my five happIANA tests the one not yet handled
is a about a registry populated by RFCs, where an old
value in an RFC published before the registry existed
did not yet make it into the registry (as "historic").

-Frank