Re: [apps-discuss] type name suffixes

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Wed, 16 November 2011 00:04 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 A770211E814A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:04:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, 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 R-Ke-GdyLXeG for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0521F11E8119 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8GE5PPLMO018591@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:03:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8DV7Q11A800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01O8GE5O3B5K00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:00:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:40:18 +0800" <4EC2DC42.7010307@stpeter.im>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <4EBB2B83.3060901@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88AB2EM7S00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBBB0EE.8050502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88YVG6MQY00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBCCE76.2090807@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8AM6GDT5000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC0CCAE.5070402@stpeter.im> <01O8EWMK2T8E00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC2DC42.7010307@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] type name suffixes
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, 16 Nov 2011 00:04:00 -0000

> > > The reason I ask is that I've had a few
> > > people ask me about this topic recently.

> > Well, the preferable thing would be to get the process Tony defined that I
> > included in 4288bis approved. Absent that, the rule is more or less that
> > you can use a suffix if you like and if it seems to make sense.

> Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the right place to define
> this more carefully is 4288bis.

Yes, and that text is already in 4288bis. Please have a look and see if you
think it is OK - there have been very few comments on it.

 In the meantime, let's say that someone
> wants to register "application/foo+bar" -- do we feel that they need to
> describe the "+bar" suffix in a separate specification, or can they
> simply go ahead and use the suffix in the I-D that registers the "foo"
> application, perhaps along with some explanatory text?

I'd reccomment including some explanatory text saying where the format
associated with the suffix is defined, but I see no need for a separate
specification. In fact the 4288bis approach is specifically intended to make a
separate specification unnecessary.

				Ned