Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:32:38 -0400

On 4/4/2012 10:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The latter naming template convention (+xml) is well-established.
>
> Even if an equivalent convention has not yet been established for 
> json, it makes sense to reapply the model for naming json-based 
> media-types.

Although draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs both mentions the use of 
+json and defines a registry that can be used to register it, and 
despite +json being used already in a variety of registered media types, 
+json hasn't been formally defined yet.

So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to 
fill in this hole.

Discussion of the draft should occur on the APPS AWG mailing list 
<[email-masked]>.

     Tony Hansen
     [email-masked]

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:06:06 +0200

>So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04304.html
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT)

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04304.html

It someone wants to do this registration in an RFC, I have no objection - 
as long as the RFC in question isn't the registration document itself.

				Ned

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:53:37 -0700 (PDT)

> So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to

The draft looks good to me. The one question I have is whether or not we also
want to register +ber for Basic Encoding Rules. +der is actually a subset of
+ber, but while some types require use of DER, there are probably some that do
not, and using +der for those would be incorrect. And either one can be
processed to some extend without the ASN.1 schema.

The latter point is why it doesn't make sense to register +per for Packed
Encoding Rules. PER cannot be processed without knowing the ASN.1 schema
involved, because what's in the schema changes the representation on the wire.

I've also never heard of any actual use of PER or Canonical Encoding Rules
(CER), so I see no reason to bother with either. Which is a pity, because I
like CER a lot more than DER.

				Ned

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:44:11 -0400

Hmmm, interesting. Even though I'm a co-author on that doc, I forgot 
about that particular tidbit in it. :-)

I still think it's worth separating out the registration of these 
suffixes and making them explicit.

     Tony Hansen