Re: [media-types] Subtypes and registration trees

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 17 June 2016 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 605D112D62F for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 o1RSLeac7AZF for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pechora5.dc.icann.org (pechora5.icann.org [IPv6:2620:0:2830:201::1:71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE26312D5B9 for <media-types@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by pechora5.dc.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5HEkopc020029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <media-types@iana.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:47:11 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=25735; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1466174831; x=1467384431; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=lwedb2ltw7SV8t6COb38C9n4mzT83r8aM4qPXL3md4M=; b=JezIxZe8rVvDp/AgGNoPbV3Nc9YlofKtNBzIxOsuvx9uNwlyJ1ankphy ZJV8rn2lx/0YR0/2umt9Aa7NFA5z0hAL4W777tgaMrmBypgwTZ7/aOBnw Co4RvS9mu+xcBwncIlKueRp6iWM9xMhfry12TiZ/xmoGPfLHEQQ6Qt1qi c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,484,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="677782303"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jun 2016 14:46:49 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5HEkmmx000920; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:46:49 GMT
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
References: <0B7A073C-5F90-4793-855F-77334327A254@mnot.net> <6c78740d-70be-abab-4df2-58e4c4abb873@seantek.com> <B01A2544-BA37-45B0-B9C6-C3CE457E4445@mnot.net> <CABCOCHQMEODYiiHTyjdHe6bqt2u9vi1NZK+sdatv20ExiOnAew@mail.gmail.com> <8330e51a-8f62-aad1-2d20-2c9c7db811f1@cisco.com> <CABCOCHQYGjjZZH8sxxhdnBXJYGY+YfpukmOeLK0_M_huvLa6hg@mail.gmail.com> <21851603-b224-2850-1ee1-a03ff4f350df@seantek.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1b4ea4b1-3f74-0ff1-c8e8-2e1f4e4dc8e8@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:46:51 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21851603-b224-2850-1ee1-a03ff4f350df@seantek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D379BDED6D65CD09A8085EAB"
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (pechora5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.71]); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:47:11 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/Lg2Yx3BakC-VVig6gwLMI43n_4g>
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, art-ads@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "media-types@iana.org" <media-types@iana.org>, "netconf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [media-types] Subtypes and registration trees
X-BeenThere: media-types@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:47:29 -0000

On 6/17/2016 2:59 PM, Sean Leonard wrote:
> On 6/17/2016 4:42 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I'm not sure what the conclusion is regarding this email thread?
>>     Also, it should be time to include the NETCONF community on this
>>     topic.
>>     Why not an email thread with both netconf and media-types?
>>
>>
>> I am changing the media type name so that faceted names are not used.
>>
>> yang.foo becomes yang-foo
>>
>> The IANA registration section is being redone to conform to RFC 6838
>>
>
> application/yang.foo -> application/yang-foo
>
> corrects the faceted name problem, yes.
>
> However, the other point has not been addressed. I do not see a 
> technical reason or justification for registering 8 media types, when 
> application/yang; yangtype="foo" (api, data, datastore, errors, 
> operation, stream, patch, patch-status) suffices. Please address.
Is this a constraint imposed by the media-type designated expert or a 
preference?
Maybe this is mentioned by one of the RFCs at 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml? Sorry I 
have not read them all.
If a preference, then it should be discussed on the NETCONF mailling list.

Regards, Benoit


>
> Best regards,
>
> Sean
>
>>
>>
>>     Regards, B.
>>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
>>>     wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         > On 10 Jun 2016, at 12:15 PM, Sean Leonard
>>>         <dev+ietf@seantek.com <mailto:dev+ietf@seantek.com>> wrote:
>>>         >
>>>         > When it comes to Internet media types, "subtype" refers to
>>>         everything after the "/" and "type" refers to everything
>>>         prior to the "/".
>>>         >
>>>         > The field "Subtype name" is a field in the media type
>>>         registration template--its usage in those drafts is correct.
>>>
>>>         Even:
>>>
>>>         """
>>>         The parent MIME media type for RESTCONF resources is
>>>         application/yang, which is defined in [RFC6020].  This
>>>         document defines the following sub-types for this media type.
>>>         """
>>>
>>>         ? That seems to read as if "application/foo.bar" is a
>>>         subtype of "application/foo".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I can see from RFC 6838, 4.2 that we named all of our media
>>>     types incorrectly.
>>>
>>>     The media type application/yang just refers to UTF-8 text that
>>>     represents a YANG
>>>     module or submodule. It is expected to conform to the YANG syntax.
>>>
>>>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-14.1
>>>
>>>     We are incorrectly using this as a tree root for adding subtypes.
>>>
>>>     We want to create media types that conform to a particular YANG
>>>     schema.
>>>     We defined a YANG extension hack to define YANG data structures
>>>     for a media type
>>>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-13#section-8
>>>     (see restconf-media-type)
>>>
>>>     Our IANA section for Media Sub Types is wrong
>>>
>>>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-13#section-11.3
>>>
>>>     It appears we have to make a Media Type registration similar to
>>>     RFC 6020 14.1
>>>     for each of (what we call) the sub-types.
>>>
>>>          application/yang-api
>>>          application/yang-data
>>>          application/yang-datastore
>>>          application/yang-errors
>>>          application/yang-operation
>>>          application/yang-stream
>>>
>>>          application/yang-patch
>>>          application/yang-patch-status
>>>
>>>
>>>     Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         >
>>>         > When referring to the construct as a whole, the term
>>>         "media type" is generally used, not "media subtype" or
>>>         "subtype". However, I suppose that "subtype" would be
>>>         technically correct (although not preferred) because
>>>         application/xml (for example) is actually a subtype of
>>>         application. Stylistically it should be called the media
>>>         type application/xml, etc.
>>>         >
>>>         > They should be called application/yang-api,
>>>         application/yang-patch, application/yang-patch-status, etc.
>>>         >
>>>         > I am assuming that YANG is referring specifically to the
>>>         language (akin to saying "C++" or "JavaScript"), and not
>>>         referring specifically to the structured syntax (akin to
>>>         saying "JSON"). If YANG is referring specifically to a
>>>         structured syntax, then the media types should end in +yang.
>>>         My knowledge of YANG is not deep enough to opine further on
>>>         this point.
>>>         >
>>>         > Regards,
>>>         >
>>>         > Sean
>>>         >
>>>         > On 6/9/2016 4:45 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>         >> YANG is attempting to register a number of media types
>>>         that begin with "application/yang."; see:
>>>         >>
>>>         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-08#section-4.2
>>>         >>
>>>         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-13#section-11.3
>>>         >>
>>>         >> E.g., it calls "application/yang.api" a "subtype" of
>>>         "application/yang".
>>>         >>
>>>         >> I read RFC6838 to prohibit this, because the portion of a
>>>         subtype preceded by the first "." indicates the registration
>>>         tree in a facet, and faceted media types are prohibited from
>>>         being registered in the standards tree (unless they're
>>>         grandfathered in in Appendix A). Furthermore, the drafts'
>>>         use of "subtype" is erroneous.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Is that understanding correct? If so, should they be
>>>         using different media types, or is there some other way to
>>>         accommodate what they want?
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Cheers,
>>>         >>
>>>         >>
>>>         >> --
>>>         >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
>>>         >>
>>>         >> _______________________________________________
>>>         >> media-types mailing list
>>>         >> media-types@ietf.org <mailto:media-types@ietf.org>
>>>         >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
>>>         >
>>>         >
>>>         >
>>>         > _______________________________________________
>>>         > media-types mailing list
>>>         > media-types@ietf.org <mailto:media-types@ietf.org>
>>>         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
>>>
>>>         --
>>>         Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> media-types mailing list
>> media-types@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
>
>