Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions

[Darrel Miller <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your feedback Sean.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: media-types [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Sean Leonard

> To get it in the Standards subtree, either the registration has to be
based on
> a specification by a recognized Standards Development Organization (SDO),
> or published as an RFC at least at Informational level. Only the format
> specification has to be by a a recognized SDO--the format specification
> document does not have to incorporate the media type registration
> template. So if you already have the format in a published document, you
> can write the media type registration template yourself.

I'm just guessing, but I don't believe there is going to be any appetite for
republishing the existing specification as an IETF document.  I will find
out.

> 
> However, it sounds like you need to publish an RFC in this case (assuming
> that you don't want ".vnd"). The RFC can go through IETF Consensus (i.e.,
go
> through a working group), or can go through the Independent Submission
> Editor as an Independent document.
> 
As there is an existing "working group" managed via the Linux Foundation
infrastructure, an independent submission would probably be the appropriate
route to take, assuming the group decide it is worth publishing an IETF
version of the spec to remove the vnd.

> 
> Regarding +yaml, adding a new structured syntax registration requires
Expert
> Review. This means that an RFC is not required. Just fill out the template
and
> get it reviewed and approved.
> 
I'm not sure I follow.  Where would I find this template to fill out that
allows me to register a new suffix?  I don't see any reference to this
process in RFC 6839.

> Under the circumstances, however, I would recommend that a discrete YAML
> media type be defined if you want the structured syntax suffix. This is
mainly
> because it seems to make sense to have a generic way to interchange YAML
> that is not specific to OpenAPI. I would recommend text/yaml. 

I had not considered the fact that someone had never got around to
registering a YAML media type.

> The
> distinction between text/yaml and application/yaml boils down to a few
> considerations:
> snip

Thanks for enumerating these.  It was never really clear to me when to use
one versus the other.

> 
> Overall my opinion is on the side of text/yaml, if you register the
generic type
> at all. You do not have to. I am not familiar with the history of YAML,
but I
> suppose there is probably some reason why it has not been registered yet.
> Perhaps implementers found that text/plain worked fine for them, or for
> computer-to-computer interchange it was easier to exchange JSON or XML.
> 

I think YAML sees more usage as a file format than a message format and
therefore the need for a media type has been less pressing.

Thanks again for your assistance.

Darrel