Re: [Rats] Adoption call for draft-lundblade-rats-eat-media-type

Anders Rundgren <> Wed, 03 August 2022 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E029C14F612 for <>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4mswRX9_jC5 for <>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2C8BC157902 for <>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q30so16236676wra.11 for <>; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fEpYxeE8Gt1Dwtb0YLMDaBlvmIuyZNmFv3WRi34d9Ow=; b=DcCJ5U7suY3S5SDdLxkNMXteMdwLkjFpw9WI8VYy3mG1tgx26ms4WdXGR5c6ChJl7Z wsIofrSRAjR8fTnTIxegQV367n4fgNPhLqbIKDQJmSHW8UFY2fXegax6oSg0al1RcmT7 s2vJXk5AIu0F9oikzteUDSMfc+Axk5BZ34ID1HakmvraNeNxBWENaUlC19XKsOlcUnEN RBd1lXOE1z255KyWgSaZ63d4BSRhCr0ax5ImVKriua/3BmXf61uAGdhFlSi7kJW0sk2o o4MPzrl6vFnCxSoo4kaPddVhSjXRiIQ9CEgypVWI3dMxTRrvXLIsyKUOag7gJurrjTKZ I1nA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fEpYxeE8Gt1Dwtb0YLMDaBlvmIuyZNmFv3WRi34d9Ow=; b=YYiK9c3f3K4UgLfo1eOzfO736FagBujY/sbe8PEDBGLUXb0eKWQ3AU1exzZ7VR3iDq EARGVGIhWX/Rv5RYZdwV4FQcZDHxiDKjO7VG9Uw9Z9H5wz78qSDSelnfDerYsfwElv5j CCsy1DXGWm9pV+9fDqetekZeF0yUGAedVDm4WUn2SV4kdC63kakhF74B+JDCOT9heptK CqAfVxdj3F3X+NThyZKcAwJoMSMEboP1EyZXDFURn5t1tJ11C7vnzMipUbtJowLsk0a3 o+WiJF3IMt9HmIUjVsRYuHpSQ9z40xpwAbMqLjzvtel98KqWR79P1+ii6Uip7sNWX4q6 c3Vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1rJoxDdXoo/DTVctqc+6cGbZWcPTms/Bcmla4szB5CrJFScPYw hD+Om18zjrG7/wgtYbGz6ni0DW8e7/s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR73iEbSH59Ez/xwqHjfaMY2ipEuRVCcaP3Bnj0GBuZozgXu0EILWDN5zfBLeT72Ng4J9r7KBQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1241:b0:21e:f1e1:2ca2 with SMTP id j1-20020a056000124100b0021ef1e12ca2mr15059927wrx.122.1659515811723; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2a01:e34:ec4e:5670:58a:5a8c:4ae5:10a3? ([2a01:e34:ec4e:5670:58a:5a8c:4ae5:10a3]) by with ESMTPSA id bg40-20020a05600c3ca800b003a2ed2a40e4sm1834410wmb.17.2022. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 10:36:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Anders Rundgren <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Adoption call for draft-lundblade-rats-eat-media-type
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 08:36:57 -0000

5. I do not object to the adoption but would not use it...

As I understand this draft is inspired by CoAP.

I'm less convinced (but cannot prove it) that media types are commonly used for selecting application in servers.
According to MCR, media types are used for figuring out the content of supplied data during "transport", while tags represent the counterpart for data "at rest".

If you put the two lines above together you will get a spec where (in practice) clients MUST provide proper media types while servers MAY ignore them and stick to tags.  I have yet to understand the relationship between these methods.

I would not take that path because in-object tags can be used in both situations.

If you to this scheme add EAT profile URLs things begin to get pretty complex.


On 2022-08-03 1:02, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
> Hello RATs participants,
> This is a call for support and adoption of
> Please respond to this thread on the following:
>  1. You have read the draft and believe it is ready to be adopted by the working group. Any other feedback on the content of the draft is welcomed too.
>  2. You support and are willing to provide feedback and comments on the draft
>  3. You support the draft and plan to implement
>  4. You support the draft but have no time or plans to implement now, but can provide feedback
>  5. You have no interest in the draft 
> The adoption call will close on Aug 19^th 2022
> Thanks,
> Nancy
> (on behalf of the RATs chairs)
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list