IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [media-types] (No subject)

Rahul Gupta <cxres+ietf@protonmail.com> Mon, 18 March 2024 03:23 UTC

Return-Path: <cxres+ietf@protonmail.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 5EA7AC14F6AC for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysFia-dzr77b for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-4319.protonmail.ch (mail-4319.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8459EC14E513 for <media-types@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1710732200; x=1710991400; bh=CbDRZxROXRMVKF/YvCjJiQWWLdD0/2Ki0LjBiLRi78Q=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=jJ1gbk7hcT9UbLiaor07f8TZfVvwSq7irK4OG815yraZhXtClY/1DnW5fNzznYkV5 2QX+qcJUSq5PIkYF5JJuyHaGSQmzasYaimZtxcskTRk22uxGzHReCluXqPkWlsEfZs cP6fGx2JZgCdCNa9VTUQZjI4qYxRJ0JtgKBRGXNgE4yxbMswbYgolQb5pxfyGD/pEp lqjqGe6hNrVpPAXTyGvWC1G1klP6QeJqsJmIalJ+FEsOCfLLg0Qz+uvNF08nZbqO7A Q3bWuRMmufwFdAY0Y7ltF8VdcLL48fBVSvKkz6sxBwYgObv6iWZas+zT07oR3Y8rRa F0jhVa3x+aM9w==
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:23:13 +0000
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: Rahul Gupta <cxres+ietf@protonmail.com>
Cc: media-types@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ytJX8k3f2L3DXL4A13WkjpnIS-YDNscJHM67ExwNXZbkVOXlNMVkzeKLAMqLvJ7INahfyula81upmpOYDOScFDPz49rcnmR88cKLbe6BDBw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240317162649.0A1C4858A949@ary.qy>
References: <20240317162649.0A1C4858A949@ary.qy>
Feedback-ID: 919445:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; boundary="------bf69a78b03965e24cd6e01bd472131d71dff6b2f01234bf23cc5173014211bf0"; charset="utf-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/yb9Mzf-qvRwDLPZLMagBLoKQSEk>
Subject: Re: [media-types] (No subject)
X-BeenThere: media-types@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:23:26 -0000

Hi John,

Based on the feedback you and Alexey have given, I have updated the draft with a paragraph that makes it explicit that this specification is optional. Existing recipients should and will simply reject this syntax, based on the absence of "boundary" parameter in the `Content-Type` header. Only if the recipient chooses to parse the message (after seeing the parameters), do they need to process the multipart body according to the proposed syntax. I hope this allays all backward compatibility fears. 


BR/Rahul

On Sunday, March 17th, 2024 at 9:56 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> WIt appears that Rahul Gupta cxres+ietf@protonmail.com said:
> 

> > -=-=-=-=-=-
> > -=-=-=-=-=-
> > 

> > Hi Alexey,
> > 

> > Thank you for your comments.
> > 

> > I had been very careful in stating in the draft that if the `content-type` header is follows the pattern defined in RFC2046 ie
> > `multipart/something` followed by the "boundary "parameter, it will continue to be processed as before. Only when a "boundary" is not defined
> > and "no-boundary" is defined, (ie a `content-type` header that is considered illegal by RFC2046 and when multipart message is not to be
> > processed as of today) will the new standard kick-in. Therefore, I do not see how any existing implementation will break. What am I missing?
> 

> 

> Multipart is widely used in email messages where you have no idea what
> software the recipient is using, much less any control over it. I do
> not think it would be a good idea to invent something that is not
> backward compatible.

I agree. See above!

> 

> Honestly, if you're worried about performance when generating
> structured data on the fly, I'd use CBOR.

Performance is not an issue, the boundary delimiter is.

> 

> R's,
> John
> 

> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list
> media-types@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types

BR/Rahul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email