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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> I wrote an ID about MIME and web updates (in 2011):

> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-masinter-mime-web-info-02.txt

There's a lot here, but the only thing that seems relevant to this
effort is section 5.3:

   Problem: Internet Media Type registries are hard to update, and there
   can be different definitions of the same MIME type.

   STRAWMAN: Allow commenting or easier update; not all Internet Media
   Type owners need or have all the information the internet needs.
   Wiki for Internet Media Types as well as formal registry?  Ability to
   add comments about deployed senders, deployed content, deployed
   recievers.

First, the process to update a registration is the owner sends in an update.
For whatever reason we went a long time with few if any updates, but the rate
now seems to be increasing.

I can't recall a case where an update was difficult to deal with or ended up
being rejected. There have been occasional blips regarding ownership, but
again, I can't recall a case where a resolution was difficult to reach.

tl;dr I remain to be convinced that there's a problem to solve here.

As for comments, I don't have any problem with offering such a service, but I'm
skeptical that the desire to comment (in a constructive way) on media types is
sufficiently widespread that it would be useful.

> I'd hoped also to review MIME Multipart for more modern uses (shades of WPACK)
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/EixjYebQDTdbcDS6FsE0eZye4ds/

> although they haven't taken up my suggestion. Perhaps mediaman could take up
> such review?

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.

				Ned