Re: [core] 🔔 WGA multipart/core

[Peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

I fully support the adoption of this document.
It is necessary for the publication of ietf--ace-est-coaps  draft in ACE

peter
Jaime Jiménez schreef op 2018-06-11 07:02:

> Dear all, 
> 
> based on the ongoing discussion on the Multipart Content-Format for CoAP and the dependency with ACE, we will issue a 2 week Working group Adoption call for this draft. 
> 
> Ciao!
> 
> - - Jaime Jiménez 
> 
> On 8 Jun 2018, at 16.41, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote: 
> 
> I updated the draft based on the input we have so far (thanks to everyone replying!).
> (I added alternative text media-type labels as a trial balloon; we can always remove them in the WG discussion.
> We can also decide between single-byte and two-byte identifier.)
> 
> Name: draft-fossati-core-multipart-ct
> Revision: 05
> Title: Multipart Content-Format for CoAP
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fossati-core-multipart-ct-05
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-fossati-core-multipart-ct-05
> 
> This should be ready for working-group adoption call now.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> Please initiate 
> 
> On Jun 7, 2018, at 09:33, Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you all for the constructive discussion. To summarise some of the raised points so far:
> 
> - Dependency on EST-COAP, which is targeted for WGLC in next IETF.
> - Multipart/core can't be registered. AD pointed out that it is not possible to register "multipart" as a top-level media type. Author's proposal to rename it under application (i.e. - "application/multipart-core").
> - Should the identifier be a single byte or two?
> - Expert media-type review confirmation needed.
> 
> If the authors could submit a new version soon, I'll trigger the WGA call so that we have consensus on the draft before next IETF.
> 
> Ciao!
> - - Jaime Jiménez
> 
> On 7 Jun 2018, at 1.10, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 19:47, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The only other name I might imagine is application/multipart-cbor, as
> slightly more descriptive, but it's a bikeshed question.

> There is not that much CBOR there....  But the interesting point about
> this specific format is not so much the razor-thin CBOR envelope, but
> that this is using Content-Format identifiers from the CoRE Parameters
> registry -- hence the "core" in the proposed name.  We may want to

That's a reasonable argument for calling it multipart-core.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
architect  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
rails    [ 

_______________________________________________
core mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core 
_______________________________________________
core mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core