Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Thu, 10 November 2011 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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 16F1E1F0C34 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:58:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 NB2lis9UCicM for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F41551F0C3E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2011 01:58:21 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-222-132-099.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.222.132.99] by mail.gmx.net (mp008) with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 02:58:21 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+009N2gLS0l6EG9PKDmj2ey9aGs7KyiNygEwlb1t GjyI3JZbXhbAyB
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:58:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4ibmb7ldnqafmpem59e5umf9286ivn1f1k@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <4EB8E7FA.5030406@ninebynine.org> <4EB9D46B.8010808@dcrocker.net> <4EBB2D1B.5010206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4EBB2D1B.5010206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
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: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:58:25 -0000

* Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>On 2011/11/09 10:16, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> Thanks for raising this point. On reflection, I seem to recall that
>> adding top-level types is a Big Deal and not done.

>Of course adding a top-level type isn't something that's done every day, 
>but the last one was added almost 15 years (model/, January 1997, RFC 
>2077), and no next one (after font/) is lined up.

RFC 4735 introduced the "example" top level type in 2006. As far as I
can tell, there were a total of three comments on it, one on ietf-types
and two from the IESG, none of which were particularily negative.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/