Re: [apps-discuss] text/yaml Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 7F07012D50D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:41:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3j3xYbeJwrWv for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:41:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61B2A12D50B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:41:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F256C4017C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:41:30 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1457588490; bh=e0or8sRi2ddXE5SqQ9aqGujnmh7IfRUJLIk5rb+2n2s=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=KTpbn1o+xsXlIod8jSuWzHWuAzeSJTrm9DZlrT9wAauuowERn3/HhlNchj0wHJIXP Io/GewWnwDQQV2yB5b/SZntuvecvTKk/9LV0Mp39eRxiO13RBqmprcrc850YpIiRwi TSscz+lNyUqhmVP5NQQzEnO18mSeNtXZUcRHXJmM=
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:41:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4354120.g6DGuWIEuT@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-77-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <56E0CDBA.3050301@seantek.com>
References: <SNT405-EAS138D1B69D14EDBB70D8B858A3B20@phx.gbl> <SNT405-EAS34588208A678723B2EDD9FA3B40@phx.gbl> <56E0CDBA.3050301@seantek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/Y48-KzB5Cf4nM8iWM6arJdNdrno>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] text/yaml Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:41:34 -0000

On Wednesday, March 09, 2016 05:28:26 PM Sean Leonard wrote:
> [adding apps-discuss and dispatch]
> 
> On 3/9/2016 5:20 PM, Darrel Miller wrote:
> > Sean,
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: media-types [mailto:media-types-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Sean Leonard
> >> RFC 6838 Section 6
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-6
> >> 
> >> RFC 6839 has examples of the template actually instantiated in the text.
> > 
> > Thanks. So this is where I find myself in a catch-22 situation.  In order
> > to register the +yaml suffix, it needs to there a reference to a
> > specification for YAML.  However, there is no such specification that is
> > managed by a SDO. I searched in the YAML Core mailing list and back in
> > 2003 they discussed their plan to use text/yaml as the media type.  There
> > has been no further discussion of registering a media type since then on
> > the list.
> > 
> > So it seems that, without a spec under an SDO, it would not be possible to
> > register text/yaml or register the suffix.
> > 
> > It seems that the only option available would be for someone to convince
> > the YAML team to allow a variant of their spec (it has images in it) to
> > be created as an IETF spec.
> > 
> > Does that reasoning appear sound?
> 
> Not exactly.
> 
> First of all, it's the same situation as Markdown (see the text/markdown
> discussion over time on the apps-discuss mailing list).
> 
> The most important hurdle has been passed: some people actually *want*
> text/yaml.
> 
> The second hurdle has also (likely) been passed: people are actually
> using text/yaml for YAML stuff. This turns out to be more useful than
> the registration itself. Deploy first, register later. ;-)
> 
> The next hurdle is overcoming developer laziness, since it requires some
> modicum of effort to do the registration. Sounds like we have a willing
> victim...er...volunteer. ;-)
> 
> Getting text/yaml just requires an Informational independent-stream or
> IETF stream RFC. First write an Internet-Draft. The Internet-Draft can
> reference the yaml.org specification, without changing control over the
> specification to the IETF. Then submit the draft to the dispatch mailing
> list. (Maybe also a couple of other mailing lists, for places in IETF
> that use YAML.)
> 
> Depending on the outcome of the discussion, either the IETF will take it
> up, or not. If they do, then the media type registration will be
> published with IETF Consensus (see text/markdown). If not, then it can
> still be published an the independent stream by submitting it to the
> Independent Submissions Editor (see image/bmp, aka
> draft-seantek-windows-image)
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/>.
> 
> 
> I have not tried to register a structured syntax suffix before.
> Superficially, the process appears to be simpler, as it only needs
> Expert Review. For that, just follow what RFC 6838 Section 6 says.

Are we talking YAML 1.0, YAML 1.1, or the draft YAML 2.0 that's currently 
being specified?  Does it matter?

Scott K