application/beep+xml
Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com> Fri, 20 October 2000 07:49 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01484 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgate-01.teledesic.com (mgate-01.teledesic.com [216.190.22.41]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01478 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mgate-01.teledesic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4GTP25YF>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:54:55 -0700
Message-ID: <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE00105A04D@tdmail2.teledesic.com>
From: Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>
To: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com
Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: application/beep+xml
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:54:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-xml-mime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-xml-mime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
I finally took the time to review <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-beep-framework-05.txt> and <http://www.bxxp.org>, and I would like to suggest that text/xml is probably not the best MIME type to use for your BEEP channel management and profile configuration. Among other things: + In Section 2.2.2.2, you constrain what is acceptable beyond well-formed and valid XML (e.g., internal entity declarations are not allowed). + It is hard to imagine any scenario where the BEEP channel management should be presented to users, since it is explicitly designed for process to process communications. + You don't have line-ending conversion issues to deal with, since CRLF is mandated. + The fact that you recommend against a DOCTYPE declaration in Section 2.2.2.2 (even though DTDs are defined in section 7) means that if BEEP XML gets out in the wild, it will be more difficult to identify. The custom MIME type would provide that identification. I would suggest that you review <http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml> (which has finished last call and will hopefully soon be approved by the IESG). I don't know if something like application/beep+xml would meet your needs, but I am at least fairly certain that application/xml would be a better choice than text/xml. Given sections 3.1.2 and 4.1.2 of the BEEP framework, it seems that you might also want to consider registering application/tls+xml and application/sasl+xml. Or alternatively, you could have the SASL and TLS DTDs referenced as external entities to the core BEEP DTD, and get by with just application/beep+xml. (Note that there is no explicit one-to-one mapping between DTDs and MIME types, although such a mapping would be especially useful when DOCTYPE declarations are discouraged.) Separately, I would suggest that in Section 2.2.1.2, you should normatively reference serial number arithmetic as defined in RFC 1982. Finally, Appendix E of RFC 2396 deprecates the use of "URL:" as in <URL:http://www.iana.org/>. - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> <http://www.dankohn.com> <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
- RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml Marshall Rose
- RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- RE: [BXXPwg] Re: application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: application/beep+xml Tim Bray
- RE: application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: application/beep+xml Marshall Rose
- application/beep+xml Dan Kohn