Re: [media-types] Thoughts on suffixes, single and multiple

[Manu Sporny <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 12:09 PM Esko Dijk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I can't imagine that WGs that have produced specifications, that use
> > suffixes, that have followed the rules to this point, as vague as they
> > have been, would accept being labeled as a "bad suffix usage".
>
> Maybe one: I would expect the ANIMA WG to now agree that the definition in RFC 8366 of
> "application/voucher-cms+json" is a "bad suffix usage".
> (Reason: the data of the media type is a CMS structure. Not JSON.)

Hmm, right, that falls into a different category than I was thinking:
That's just clearly wrong. :)

I'm guessing this is the CMS structure to which you're referring?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8366#section-5.4

... but then there seems to be an update in the works that looks like
JSON to me (updating 8366?):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher#name-voucher-artifact-with-json-

... and both of them are claiming "application/voucher-cms+json"? I'm
confused about what is going on there. Is there a one paragraph
summary of what the end-state is expected to be?

I wonder how many of those we have in the IANA Media Types registry?
I've raised an issue to track any other suffix usage that people think
are "clearly wrong". Please add your thoughts there (noting that this
is a higher bar than "I don't like it and think it should be wrong"...
what we're looking for here is a suffix being used in a way that
violates existing suffix usage rules, which a CMS structure being
signalled as JSON does):

https://github.com/ietf-wg-mediaman/suffixes/issues/25

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/