IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type'structure': when to go top-level?

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Sat, 12 November 2011 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.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 97BBA21F849B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:22:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 HagBqWsfUPUk for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com (exprod6og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550BA21F8497 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTr5IzeQJuHNGpYpBYLtRs2XfzRybziJ2@postini.com; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:22:09 PST
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id pACAM3QB014300; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nacas01.corp.adobe.com (nacas01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.99]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id pACAM25R020562; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.99]) with mapi; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:22:02 -0800
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:21:58 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type'structure': when to go top-level?
Thread-Index: AcygsqeWgvtbEUePTs6UsjkIAm9YywAcZsoQ
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF06@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <4EBB3CFC.5050608@dcrocker.net> <4EBB5310.6080103@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAC4RtVBNL_nTCwBsMQpEKS9kXUF7aj9yEstef7yrzwi8qYAQDg@mail.gmail.com> <4EBB7660.6040904@dcrocker.net> <013101cc9f8b$2e1fac80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <01O89GUH11DU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <019201cca0a2$ed2e91a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAK3OfOhRKpsh9OkLSo=PGJhe4JRFwXO9bbg6sPn6jTxnRiPaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOhRKpsh9OkLSo=PGJhe4JRFwXO9bbg6sPn6jTxnRiPaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type'structure': when to go top-level?
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: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:22:10 -0000

Media type sniffing, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff, standardizes the method for examining content and determining its type.

In issue http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/17  I proposed using the media type registry (after fixing it to be accurate) to be the source of the standard.

I don't see what "file magic numbers" are good for if they're not good for the standard for how to determine content-type when none is supplied.

Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nico Williams
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 12:44 PM
To: Apps Discuss
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type'structure': when to go top-level?

Maybe we should standardize file(1) magic, create a file magic registry, and be done.

Nico
--
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email