Re: [media-types] WG Review: Media Type Maintenance (mediaman)

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

In response to 

> A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Applications and Real-Time 
> Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft 
> charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes 
> only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([e-mail])
by 2021-07-12.

I replied

> > I wrote an ID about MIME and web updates (in 2011):
> 
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-masinter-mime-web-info-02.txt
> 
 
To which Ned responded

> There's a lot here, but the only thing that seems relevant to this effort
is....

So to be clear, I meant to suggest that the scope of work be expanded to
cover reviewing that document and seeing if there is consensus that other
problems identified no longer need solving.

Similarly, what I was suggesting
> > I'd hoped also to review MIME Multipart for more modern uses (shades
> > of WPACK)
> >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/EixjYebQDTdbcDS6FsE0eZye4d
> > s/
> 
> > although they haven't taken up my suggestion. Perhaps mediaman could
> > take up such review?

The "review" might involve reviewing the relative merits of WPACK,
multipart, ZIP, DARE
And perhaps a BCP or standards work to enhance interoperability of systems
that are forced to implement multiple tagging and bagging standards.

> I'm sorry, but I *really* don't see the point. The advantages of multipart
are
> simplicity and fallback behavior. You lose both of those big-time with
WPACK,
> leaving you with just another way to package stuff. And like it or not,
ZIP
> seems to have won that battle.

It's not an explicit battle and it will unlikely be "won".   If this is a
proposal to
reexamine MIME assumptions N years later, I meant to call for some
broadening
of scope to be investigated by the (proposed) working group.