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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 18:46, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 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.)

My understanding was that each new media type would have to be registered in the media type registry first, which is a rather high bar anyway. But maybe that is not what the WG had in mind.

I think it is more likely that "application" would be used, rather than an entirely new media type.

>>> 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?

Both :-).

Experience with media types in other places shows that new media types are hard to deploy.

> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
>