Re: [media-types] Update of MIME media type application/pkcs7-mime Registration

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

On 6/18/13 7:35 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> On 17/06/2013 21:42, Sean Turner wrote:
>> On 6/15/13 5:34 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>> On 6/14/13 6:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>> On 13 Jun 2013, at 15:46, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/13/13 10:25 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/13/13 10:18 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/06/2013 13:51, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/13/13 6:47 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> * Sean Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The application/pkcs7-mime content type defines the optional
>>>>>>>>>> "smime-
>>>>>>>>>> type" parameter [RFC5751].  The smime-type parameter for
>>>>>>>>>> Server-side
>>>>>>>>>> Key Generation Response is server-generated-key.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> smime-type name: server-generated-key
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Required parameters: None
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This should be preceded by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Type name: application
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Subtype name: pkcs7-mime
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this is supposed to register the application/pkcs7-mime type.
>>>>>>>>> But it
>>>>>>>>> seems to me that using the media type registration template here
>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>> correct, I would rather expect "Updates: 5751" and then simply
>>>>>>>>> defining
>>>>>>>>> the additional smime-type parameter, no need for the template.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not registering application/pkcs7-mime is adding a
>>>>>>>> parameter. If
>>>>>>>> I understand correctly, if we added "Updates: 5751 (once
>>>>>>>> approved)" to
>>>>>>>> the header we could just omit the template completely?  I'd argue
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> if we don't need the template that's great, but what's more
>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>> is that people be able to find these subtypes and the way to do
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> is to have them pointed to by the registry not the original
>>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>> How about if we just omit the template and ask IANA to *also*
>>>>>>>> point to
>>>>>>>> this document from the application/pkcs7-mime registry?
>>>>>>> Sounds sensible to me. (But also see my other email).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other email is about using +der and adding some generic
>>>>>> considerations
>>>>>> about parsers.  I'll have to go check on the +der bit with some folks
>>>>>> but the other suggestion seems very reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we can put +der at the end of this because the others
>>>>> don't include it.
>>>>
>>>> There is no backward compatibility issue here, so I don't understand
>>>> your argument.
>>>> The +suffix convention is a relatively new, but I think it should e
>>>> used for all new registrations that match existing suffixes.
>>>
>>> So it'd look like this:
>>>
>>> Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime+der;
>>> smime-type=server-generated-key; name=smime.p7m
>>>
>>> I'm not sure this will work though.  The certs are definitly use DER and
>>> so would any signed attributes but the rest of need not be.
>>
>> The more I think about adding +ber to the media type for this request
>> the more it doesn't make sense to me.  This is not defining a new
>> top-level media type nor a new sub-type it's defining a new optional
>> parameter.  This might have not been clear now that I look back at the
>> form:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>>   smime-type name: server-generated-key
>>
>>   Required parameters: None
>>
>>   Optional parameters: None
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>>   Required parameters: None
>>
>>   Optional parameters: smime-type name: server-generated-key
>>
>> Adding +ber to application/pkcs7-mime doesn't seem to make sense to me
>> because it would be retro actively changing a widely supported media
>> type.  The other thing would be to use +ber but only when this
>> optional parameter appeared and that also seems a bit odd to me.
>
> One (or both) of us got confused. Of course it doesn't make sense to
> change existing MIME type. I was recommending use of +ber suffix for new
> MIME type registrations.

Okay - roger might have been me.  Anyway that's another thread then ;)

But, I'll still ask the authors up the registration text as noted above 
with the old/new text.

spt