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 13:37, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016, at 06:24 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Also inline,
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2016, at 12:41, Roni Even 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)
>>>>
>
>  [snip]
>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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'm not sure I understand your response. When you say "other media
>> types", do you mean other types that are registered in the media-type
>> registry, but not described in RFC6838?
>
> In case it helps: top level media types like "model", "application",
> "message", and not full media types like "application/pdf". These 
> should
> be very rare. JUSTFONT WG is working on another one, but this is the
> first time something was added in more than 10 years. I honestly doubt
> anything other than "video", "audio" or "text" would be usable for 
> CLUE
> anyway.

That was my assumption. That's part of why I wondered about the ability 
to ability to invent arbitrary values. (But note that I've already 
cleared my DISCUSS.)

>
>> Or other arbitary media types
>> that are not registered or otherwise publicly documented?
>
> I would be impressed if any undocumented or unregistered top level 
> media
> type would be interoperable, so I don't think any such media types
> matter.

Does that mean you don't think people will use undocumented media-types 
due to the lack of interoperability, or that anyone who does will be 
effectively proprietary and we should assume they don't want to 
interoperate in the first place?

Thanks!

Ben.