RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml

Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com> Tue, 24 October 2000 16:53 UTC

Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07373 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:53:19 -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 JAA07369 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by MGATE-01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <VPSP9JBD>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:59:02 -0700
Message-ID: <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE00105A154@tdmail2.teledesic.com>
From: Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>
To: bxxpwg@invisibleworlds.com
Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:58:54 -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>

Marshall, my only question is whether some of the Security Considerations of
<http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml> additionally apply.  Since you are
prohibiting the use of external entities, you avoid most of the risks,
however there is still the possibility of someone parsing the data with a
standard XML processor.  Also, you might explicitly want to mention whether
this type follows RFC 2376bis's advice on use of the BOM (section 4),
XPointer syntax (section 5), and Base URI (section 6).  Or, you could just
leave these things undefined. 

Thanks.

		- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
<http://www.dankohn.com>  <tel:+1-650-327-2600>

-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Rose [mailto:mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, 2000-10-24 08:21
To: bxxpwg@invisibleworlds.com
Cc: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Subject: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml


hi. after review, it looks like application/beep+xml is probably the
better choice. unless folks believe otherwise, here is what i propose to
add to the draft. please comment.
    
thanks,
    
/mtr

ps: naturally, the examples will all change to use this media type
instead of text/xml
    
    				  #######
    
6.4 Registration: application/beep+xml

   MIME media type name: application

   MIME subtype name: beep+xml

   Required parameters: none

   Optional parameters: charset (defaults to "UTF-8"[RFC 2279])

   Encoding considerations: always use binary

   Security considerations: none, per se; however, any BEEP profile
      which uses this media type must describe its relevant security
      considerations

   Interoperability considerations: n/a

   Published specification: This media type is a proper subset of the
      the XML 1.0 specification[2]. Two restrictions are made. 

      First, no entity references other than the five predefined
      general entities references ("&amp;", "&lt;", "&gt;", "&apos;",
      and "&quot;") and numeric entity references may be present. 

      Second, neither the "XML" declaration (e.g., <?xml version="1.0"
      ?>) nor the "DOCTYPE" declaration (e.g., <!DOCTYPE ...>) may be
      present. (Accordingly, if another character set other than UTF-8
      is desired, then the "charset" parameter must be present.) 

      All other XML 1.0 instructions (e.g., CDATA blocks, processing
      instructions, and so on) are allowed.

   Applications which use this media type: any BEEP profile wishing to
      make use of this XML 1.0 subset

   Additional Information: none

   Contact for further information: c.f., the "Author's Address"
      section of this memo

   Intended usage: limited use

   Author/Change controller: the IESG


_______________________________________________
BXXPwg mailing list
BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net
http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg