Re: [apps-discuss] +exi

psaintan <psaintan@cisco.com> Fri, 10 February 2012 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <psaintan@cisco.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 A3C1A21F8474 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:52:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 u-7xjaIe7LWw for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:52:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968B021F8598 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:52:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=psaintan@cisco.com; l=1473; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328842329; x=1330051929; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jbogm/asBQODu62IJ6lAmMLN2o7F8Q32BVJOTloRajk=; b=GS5aNaoO8Ofizfy6dwAbgq0zZTO/CD87qIv+9GgXwh+yr8wjw9IgdI6p RNVkHOiQsh6QLMmNRIC57H+qkYM7y0naIRhGatMCVwWJOAQ5ZlTfwEpVD 3AvPaHCPopYOC/9EXY7QUrn4DiGqoQeor3YvDSB5Ha+287pVULpYyzA1/ A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAD2FNE+tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABDr1+BB4FyAQEBAwESAScCATUHBQ0BCAkPgQUBAQQOBQkZh1oJmgMBnw+LMQgFFgUFBwUJAQcBNQsEEA6EMwEFJoMdBIhIhRuHTJMC
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,394,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="57785297"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2012 02:52:08 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1A2q8Rx013145; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:52:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-310.cisco.com ([72.163.63.25]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:52:08 -0600
Received: from 10.89.14.167 ([10.89.14.167]) by XMB-RCD-310.cisco.com ([72.163.63.25]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([128.107.191.32]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:52:08 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.12.0.080729
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:52:05 -0700
From: psaintan <psaintan@cisco.com>
To: <paduffy@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <CB59D465.18D85%psaintan@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] +exi
Thread-Index: AcznnvivizwwE7CwFU2psIu1GoJBiA==
In-Reply-To: <4F342460.7020402@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2012 02:52:08.0559 (UTC) FILETIME=[FACE87F0:01CCE79E]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:53:24 -0800
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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 02:52:23 -0000

As I recall, Zach Shelby was going to write a short draft about the
registration requirements for +exi...

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03981.html

I haven't seen that pop out yet.

Peter

On 2/9/12 12:54 PM, "Paul Duffy" <paduffy@cisco.com> wrote:

> We are closing this SEP2 issue in the next few days.
> 
> Consensus seems to be (?):
> 
> Content_Type: application/sep+xml
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> Content_Type: application/sep+exi
> 
> The first indicating POX-to-native objects processing only, the second
> indicating EXI-to-native processing (no intermediate XML ... its not a
> compression).  May be further extended to support variants of EXI
> processing.
> 
> Going once, going twice, ....
> 
> We need to get this registered with IANA, etc.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> On 12/17/2011 7:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 18 December 2011 06:34, Zach Shelby<zach@sensinode.com>  wrote:
>>> I don't find the SchemaId all that useful. First of all, you need to invoke
>>> your EXI parser to even get at that. It is more useful to immediately look
>>> at the content-type to decide which parser to throw a representation at. A
>>> strictly defined foo+exi registration would tell you that nicely.
>> ISTM that a link relation type for schema would make some sort of
>> difference.  The JSON schema draft had a "describedby" relation type
>> that might fit the bill (though "schema" is shorter).
>> 
>