Re: [apps-discuss] Getting 3023bis, a.k.a. draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes, moving

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 01 May 2013 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 6569C21F8EEA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 05:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 g9mrqDyUuENh for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 05:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFC821F908B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 05:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r41CDmcA004953; Wed, 1 May 2013 21:13:48 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6199_d9e0_9428e208_b258_11e2_951f_001e6722eec2; Wed, 01 May 2013 21:13:48 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23761C022D; Wed, 1 May 2013 21:13:17 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <518106F0.1090001@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 21:13:36 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
References: <f5b38u89jiz.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk> <1CD55F04538DEA4F85F3ADF7745464AF249DAECA@S-BSC-MBX1.nrn.nrcan.gc.ca> <f5bzjwf57pf.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <f5bzjwf57pf.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Getting 3023bis, a.k.a. draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes, moving
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: Wed, 01 May 2013 12:14:02 -0000

On 2013/05/01 19:13, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Rushforth, Peter writes:
>
>> Section 8.
>>
>> Suggest to remove the recommendation to register media types with +xml
>> suffix.  Suggest to add recommendation for a 'profile' parameter for application/xml,
>> as is being done for atom : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-atom-profile-01
>
> I have to say I'm not inclined to go that way.  There is a _very_
> large installed base, particularly of application/xhtml+xml and
> application/rdf+xml.  There are around 100 registered
> application/xxx+xml media types registered _outside_ the
> vnd... sub-space, and another 200 or so there.  We recently spent a
> lot of time getting both the general approach to registering
> structured suffixes and their uses [1] and using that approach to
> clean up / document existing practices [2], including the +xml case.
>
> Introducing an alternative profile-based approach at this point would
> just confuse things, IMO.

I fully agree. The proposal comes *extremely* late and without any 
justification.

>> Suggest to remove reference to Appendix A.  Remove Appendix A,
>> also. All of that stuff is not the business of this RFC, but is the
>> responsibility of the registration procedure, in my opinion.
>
> What do people think?  Appendix A [3] is "Why Use the '+xml' Suffix
> for XML-Based MIME Types?" and is carried over nearly unchanged from
> RFC3023 [4].  Maybe it was needed 12 years ago but is no longer
> relevant/necessary/useful?

Yes. Please remove Appendix A, then add RFC 3023 as an informational 
reference and point to its Appendix A as "historical reading".

More comments hopefully coming soon.

Regards,   Martin.