Re: [apps-discuss] +exi

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> * Ned Freed wrote:
> >> Last I heard the idea was that draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs would
> >> formalize the `+example` convention, but someone would have to write the
> >> registration for `+json` separately. That has not happened yet as far as
> >> I am aware. I argued that draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs should re-
> >> gister already established conventions like `+json`, but apparently I
> >> was unsuccessful.
> >
> >Read the draft again, in particular the IANA considerations. That's exactly
> >what it does do.

> I take it you mean

>    o  The initial content of the registry shall be constructed at the
>       time of the registry's creation by the designated media types
>       reviewer(s) by examining the current media types registry and
>       extracting all conforming uses of "+suffix" names.

> I would have expected the draft to have the actual registration forms
> for the suffixes in question, but okay.

Material for one time use like this turns into useless clutter the minute the
registrations are done. In fact it's worse than useless  clutter - a careless
reader might infer that the registrations in a registration document like this
are the list of available suffixes.

Additionally, I don't see any point in duplicating existing registry content
anywhere else and then having to continually check to see if any new prefixes
have shown up in the registry. So I'm also opposed to having a separate
document to do this. That's why I came up with the idea of having the reviewers
create the initial suffix registry content from the existing media types
registry.

Again, the lighter the processes we define, the better.

				Ned