Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 23:02 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 4B68D1F0C6C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:02:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, 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 X68zQ4YGtNNy for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71461F0CB7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8EXP7UM740180D5@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:02:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8DV7Q11A800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01O8EXP3E5XQ00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:50:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:11:33 -0600" <CAK3OfOiWmYxbANidbMiT3aJ6ES=mc0Gi_vvMB3bw-eQvaTcQQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0BE9E.8020702@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAK3OfOiEfX3duaWSAZZ9T+pb9UofceH_xXW2SCBnyjLHeHHe4Q@mail.gmail.com> <01O8ETX0DJ4U00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAK3OfOiWmYxbANidbMiT3aJ6ES=mc0Gi_vvMB3bw-eQvaTcQQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:02:49 -0000

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
> >> >> * DO NOT try to avoid duplicates
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure this makes sense. I think it would make sense if it read "give
> >> > up on trying to avoid duplicates at all cost". But it almost reads like
> >> > "let's have many duplicates, this will be fun".
> >
> >> I think we should discourage collisions, but the very existence of the
> >> registry does that.  If a collision arose from registry avoidance, and
> >> implementations have been deployed widely, then what more can we do
> >> but accept it?
> >
> > Agreed, but in practice it doesn't seem like outright collisions have
> > been much of an issue.

> I think what Roy F. is saying is that the cost of registration has to
> come down a lot.

And what I'm saying is that the current cost is, Roy's beliefs to the contrary
notwithstanding, quite low - as in answer a half dozen questions on a web form
low. And we've been actively pursuing various tweaks to move the bar even
lower.

Furthermore, the proposed alternative of allowing a sort of free-for-all where
random folks can register and comment on stuff willy-nilly, is actually pretty
much the process we already have for media type comments. Except here's the
funny thing: Despite the current ready availability of the process that's
supposed to cure all our ills, essentially nobody ever uses it.

> If collisions are a problem at all they must be a
> relatively small problem, and you (and Roy F.) claim that collisions
> are of little consequence, in which case we can lower the cost of
> registration still more.

This assumes that currently there's significant cost associated with collision
checks. I can't speak to other registries, but I can assure you the amount
of time spent on this in the case of media types is truly negligable.

				Ned