IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] +exi

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Fri, 10 February 2012 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 7647421F84F4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:02:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 IlfSE3nTZ2F0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD1E21F84EE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OBTT905EAO003XVD@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OBR11Q7E9S00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01OBTT8X03QS00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:01:19 -0800
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:20:37 +0100" <hnuaj7hjvc3l168s7j5h634530ecfq1j41@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="iso-8859-1"
References: <CB59D465.18D85%psaintan@cisco.com> <86F0E68C-8D18-4F9A-86C5-0CC93D406238@sensinode.com> <4F357924.2070705@stpeter.im> <hnuaj7hjvc3l168s7j5h634530ecfq1j41@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: paduffy@cisco.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Thomas Herbst <therbst@silverspringnet.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] +exi
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:02:38 -0000

> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >Section 7 of RFC 3023 (XML media type) might be helpful:
> >
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3023#section-7
> >
> >I was hoping that RFC 4627 has something similar for JSON, but I don't
> >see it there.

> 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.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email