Re: [clue] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 1 Jun 2016, at 13:18, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Inline
>> Roni
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 5:23 PM
>>> To: The IESG
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Ben Campbell's Discuss on 
>>> draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-15:
>>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>>
>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-15: Discuss
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to 
>>> all email
>>> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this 
>>> introductory
>>> paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> - 11.2: I would like to discuss whether it's a good idea to allow 
>>> arbitrary
>>> values for mediaType, beyond those types registered in IANA.
>>> The text seem to encourage proprietary values. Did the working group
>>> consider requiring IANA registration of some sort for new values?
>>
>>
>> [Roni Even] ] I think that the meaning was to allow the media types 
>> from the IANA registry 
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml . The 
>> issue will be about the usage of other media types in the CLUE 
>> environment and not about the values themselves.
>> Alissa also suggested that we clarify it
>
> I asked this same question in my AD review and Simon updated the text. 
> I think the text as it is now is clear, but the question is whether 
> the approach is the best one. I think overall this spec favors 
> customization over interop more than I personally would have liked, 
> but the WG did have consensus around this particular trade-off and 
> other similar ones, so I respect that.

I reviewed 14. Checking 15... Yes, that is more clear. I can accept that 
as working group consensus (and will clear). But as a "COMMENT", I think 
it might be helpful to add a sentence or two about why working group 
chose to balance things that way. Do people expect custom media types to 
be rare?  Is there any concern about media-type name collisions?

Ben.