Re: [core] multipart/core

[Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]>]

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