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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 10 March 2016 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 9552E12D63C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:02:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 F0VCPYJ-f0Os for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3E4212D62E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:01:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.149]) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E1D41C0E9; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:01:55 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter21-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.197]) by mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8EyASTcRgZKL; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:01:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Originating-IP: 93.204.214.47
Received: from nar.local (p5DCCD62F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.204.214.47]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D07B41C11E; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:01:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <56E145FB.5010303@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:01:31 +0100
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
References: <SNT405-EAS138D1B69D14EDBB70D8B858A3B20@phx.gbl> <SNT405-EAS34588208A678723B2EDD9FA3B40@phx.gbl> <56E0CDBA.3050301@seantek.com> <4354120.g6DGuWIEuT@kitterma-e6430>
In-Reply-To: <4354120.g6DGuWIEuT@kitterma-e6430>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/ogNUkOxikiMnAPsr2IDZfDOrD_g>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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 10:02:01 -0000

I missed the YAML 2.0 activity -- do you have a pointer?

What's out there is mainly YAML 1.2, and that would be the target.

(I'm interested in this not only because most software I use has some
YAML component to it, but also because YAML and CBOR have a pretty good
feature match -- CBOR already has its JSON-based "diagnostic notation",
but YAML as a human-oriented extension of JSON brings a lot to the table.)

Grüße, Carsten


Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>