Re: [media-types] updates to RFC6838 in the horizon?

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Thu, 18 October 2018 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13495130E00 for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QTZQk965YobL for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (unknown [66.159.242.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 684D6130DFF for <media-types@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QYLCDAFJ8000EOXZ@mauve.mrochek.com> for media-types@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1539902490; bh=Ud8Nz3RJpyn6xaClEjVc8r2t36sPv63CDgg85i0HK+k=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=V0GV3pnYmnWHlBBfzInXRPgVWTQWSaA7o3foXuAZfCXcv9xtqh/pTUX14VG4DLBjN mtk+MO6M7KTOLKKIp/IrNJDcse894NXdhmWJAMCP5J6I2nRhlVkqjwFO8F/Omtwc4C 0+/nWUy2Hog0F9/0fWEY3TU+SqiNV0QTN10rwxNY=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="utf-8"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QYKRSFKKQO00BGSX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, media-types@ietf.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Message-id: <01QYLCD6GWBE00BGSX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:38:46 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:02:52 +0100" <f63aa5c6-5c45-8c91-3285-3421621e2621@isode.com>
References: <e25a4143-7999-4ed0-9947-776033636f15@getmailbird.com> <01Q88GLSKJC4011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com> <44F6AEF0-8A25-4981-8620-293FD5907483@hoplahup.net> <D01957F2-D4C6-4899-8417-C90B7546CD54@hoplahup.net> <f63aa5c6-5c45-8c91-3285-3421621e2621@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/HH-SijTiCBYNvpbkzV753DNJUxY>
Subject: Re: [media-types] updates to RFC6838 in the horizon?
X-BeenThere: media-types@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IANA mailing list for reviewing Media Type \(MIME Type, Content Type\) registration requests." <media-types.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/media-types>, <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/media-types/>
List-Post: <mailto:media-types@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types>, <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 22:46:36 -0000

I don't see a problem with a draft updating the template. Pretty low cost thing
to do. OTOH, nothing prevents a registration from including "additional"
additional information, nor is a registration precluded from omitting any or
all of the additional information fields.

So the value of formally adding the fields would be if it gets people to
list them when they wouldn't otherwise. Given past experience I'm skeptical
this will happen.


				Ned

> Hi Paul,

> On 16/10/2018 16:04, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > this topic seems to have gone asleep since a while.
> >
> > Can anyone provide me information on the process of suggesting changes
> > to the RFC 6838 (Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures)?

> Post a new draft with the new template(*)? I can't promise that there
> would be enough energy to get the update done, but seeing something
> concrete would certainly help.

> (*) - if you never done this, contact me off-list.

> Thank you,
> Alexey

> > thanks in advance.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Dec 2016, at 23:17, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> >
> >> This goes along the proposal I had to add UTI and Windows clipboard
> >> flavour names within the template. I remember having been too late
> >> "last time".
> >> […]
> >> Ned, how is the process to file such a change fo the template?
> >>
> >>>> 2) Is there value in adding the Apple UTI (which is at least
> >>>> documented, and in current use) to the registration templates?
> >>>
> >>> Not that I'm aware of, but more information can't hurt.
> >>>> My reason for asking is draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel
> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/
> >>>
> >>>> which will define a new top-level Media Type for fonts. I am very
> >>>> tempted to just remove the "Macintosh file type code" from the
> >>>> registration template, and could go either way on replacing it with
> >>>> an "Apple Uniform Type Identifier"
> >>>> field - opinions welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Either way works.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > media-types mailing list
> > media-types@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types