Re: [media-types] Last tracker issue for mediaman-suffixes

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Mike, that's very interesting.

Reading the document makes me think that the structured suffix registry could benefit from a field that captures a succinct description of the semantics of the suffix, and that we might need to put some measures in place to make sure that it is reasonable.  If they aren't, they shouldn't be registered -- meaning these types would need to be reworked.

Cheers,


> On 5 Mar 2024, at 05:41, Michael Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I thought it could be useful for this working group to see a set of proposed registrations for multiple suffixes in practice, including registrations for intermediate suffixes.  There are registrations at https://w3c.github.io/vc-jose-cose/#structured-syntax-suffixes for the intermediate structured suffixes resulting from the proposed media type registrations at https://w3c.github.io/vc-jose-cose/#media-types.
> 
> My take is that many of these make sense but at least one of them doesn't - "+json+jwt".  The payload of a JWT, per RFC 7519, is already *always* JSON, so the "json" part of "+json+jwt" is redundant and/or meaningless.  It's there because full media types such as "application/vc+ld+json+jwt" want to include the "ld+json" part to indicate the use of JSON-LD.  But there's an argument, based on the result above, that "application/vc+ld-json+jwt" (with a dash) might have made more sense, because it would let us skip the questionable "+json+jwt" registration.
> 
> If the working group thinks it would be useful, this reference could be added as a non-normative example to draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes.
> 
> I'll be curious what people's reactions are.
> 
>                                Best wishes,
>                                -- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manu Sporny <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 5:00 AM
> To: IETF Media Types <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>; Michael Jones <[e-mail]>; Darrel Miller <[e-mail]>; Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>; Orie Steele <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [media-types] Last tracker issue for mediaman-suffixes
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 2:41 PM Orie Steele <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> the JOSE, COSE and OAuth working groups.
> 
> -CC: Cross-posting to those groups[1], given that the people from those groups that care about media types are already on the media-types mailing list, and given the (understandable) lack of response from the rest in those groups, I doubt many care about the multiple suffixes discussion. Feel free to forward this response on to them, though.
> 
> That said, thank you for your continued interest... answers below:
> 
>> My understanding of the proposed PR text would be that there is no
>> need to register additional structured suffixes to support the
>> intention of the W3C VCWG
> 
> No, the intent is the opposite given that we tried what you suggested above during IETF 118 and there were multiple objections to that path forward.
> 
> As Carsten said, multiple suffixes aren't lego blocks that you can put together in any order. There is a fixed sequence that is expected and you need to register every structured suffix in that sequence.
> 
> This is not an issue for the VCWG or the JSON-LD WG because they intend to register all of the required structured suffixes to achieve their use cases. Other WGs would be expected to do the same.
> 
>> I'd like to see the suffixes draft make it to WGLC (with more reviews), and appreciate Manu sending this email out in order to gather feedback with sufficient time to address it before 119.
> 
> Latest draft is up here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes-07.html
> 
> -- manu
> 
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/