Re: [Rats] Shepherd review EAT media types

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kathleen,

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 16:41, Kathleen Moriarty
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> In the IANA section, 6.1.1 requests the addition of application/cwt. It appears that this is in the Media Types registry already with a reference of RFC8392.

Yes, a media type for cwt already exists, but the request in §6.1.1 is
for the "+cwt" structured syntax suffix, i.e., an

   "[a]ugmentation to the media type definition to additionally
specify the underlying structure of that media type" [1]

which does not exist, yet.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838#section-4.2.8

> For section 6.9, should this note just be removed since it is addressed in a different draft?
>
> 6.9.  Content-Format
>
>       |  *Issue*: for symmetry reasons we may need a way to pass the
>       |  profile information when using content formats too.  Early
>       |  proposal for a new CoAP option:
>       |  [I-D.fossati-core-parametrized-cf]

Yes, good catch!

> What is the timing for a change to the CoAP registry per this comment:
>
> In the registry as defined by Section 12.3 of [CoAP] at the time of
>    writing, the column "Content-Type" is called "Media type" and the
>    column "Content Coding" is called "Encoding".
>    // RFC editor: please remove this paragraph.
>
> If it is soon, then the media type should wait. If there is a planned change and it will take a while, what is the expected timeframe?

I've just checked the registry and it's now aligned.  We can just
remove the note.

I'll PR the needed changes shortly.

Cheers, thank you!