IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] +exi

Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <paduffy@cisco.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 7153221F8752 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:54:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 30Y4gCmSpjEc for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10FC21E804C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:54:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=paduffy@cisco.com; l=1111; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328817250; x=1330026850; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ybdJGSAoyqyRHX0DV18QRKF4fNRo/R8JR/lgnF2qnBI=; b=ULxbeGKtLvDq+gdpBKbpFkaLl1xUwSTZfnkH698jTDnpOut4sHBGCp4t +FxNF4+ltpFBLJqWoWVmIBHvLEL9oSI3Ag0zhVIG02pJIMkvoKUWgHBDp TAcscHMGmO+9Gwzv5+qqFdOwyKoGshw9jwlx40VE1MCv/G3NRSNJLDUe3 g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAHAEUjNE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABEgw2CAqpNgQeBcgEBAQQSAQIBDRU6BgEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYNAQUCAQEeohABgzEPAYkkki6BL4onAwgFFgUDDgkBBwEFBAMECwIHBQYBAwIUAQQOBoNgEQEBAQEBgnCBFgSISIxohVqNKQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,391,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="29567568"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2012 19:54:10 +0000
Received: from [10.21.122.242] (sjc-vpn6-754.cisco.com [10.21.122.242]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q19JsA5V015825; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:54:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4F342460.7020402@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:54:08 -0800
From: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <Peter.SaintAndre@webex.com>
References: <4EC31F1E.6070304@stpeter.im> <8p86c7d6chvadsku6k5dhct20qkl7uk73l@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <4EC326FE.1010809@stpeter.im> <lu96c7hsl37325nn3184ub4vr88qjgja50@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <EDB50792-348B-4693-9FDF-04BA091F8BE9@sensinode.com> <4EE78F2F.2070601@stpeter.im> <20111213215816.GI5525@jay.w3.org> <5EFF390A-3D29-4F15-95BE-C81EFCF6D3D5@mnot.net> <20111214092327.GK5525@jay.w3.org> <7472087B-86F9-4683-BA74-F70EC98D483C@sensinode.com> <20111217104103.GP5525@jay.w3.org> <3AC08E67-21D3-471D-8CE8-45B9FAB8A74F@sensinode.com> <CABkgnnXHAwMGMDNdK=sN25+Yds8M5hfA4=4q=ZkTdS6H082e3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXHAwMGMDNdK=sN25+Yds8M5hfA4=4q=ZkTdS6H082e3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:53:24 -0800
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Thomas Herbst <therbst@silverspringnet.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] +exi
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: paduffy@cisco.com
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, 09 Feb 2012 19:54:29 -0000

We are closing this SEP2 issue in the next few days.

Consensus seems to be (?):

Content_Type: application/sep+xml

... or ...

Content_Type: application/sep+exi

The first indicating POX-to-native objects processing only, the second 
indicating EXI-to-native processing (no intermediate XML ... its not a 
compression).  May be further extended to support variants of EXI 
processing.

Going once, going twice, ....

We need to get this registered with IANA, etc.

Thanks


On 12/17/2011 7:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 18 December 2011 06:34, Zach Shelby<zach@sensinode.com>  wrote:
>> I don't find the SchemaId all that useful. First of all, you need to invoke your EXI parser to even get at that. It is more useful to immediately look at the content-type to decide which parser to throw a representation at. A strictly defined foo+exi registration would tell you that nicely.
> ISTM that a link relation type for schema would make some sort of
> difference.  The JSON schema draft had a "describedby" relation type
> that might fit the bill (though "schema" is shorter).
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email