Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:54:12 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes
	Author(s)       : Tony Hansen
                          Alexey Melnikov
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2012-11-05

Abstract:
   A content media type name sometimes includes partitioned meta-
   information distinguish by a Structured Syntax, to permit noting an
   attribute of the media as a suffix to the name.  This document
   defines several Structured Syntax Suffixes for use with media type
   registrations.  In particular, it defines and registers the "+json",
   "+ber", "+der", "+fastinfoset", "+wbxml" and "+zip" Structured Syntax
   Suffixes, and provides a Message Type Structured Syntax Suffix
   registration form for the "+xml" Structured Syntax Suffix.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: [email-masked] (Henry S. Thompson)
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:02:59 +0000

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08.txt

Given that 

  draft-lilley-xml-mediatypes-00

has now been published, is the patch to RFC3023 in section 4 of this
document really necessary?

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: [email-masked]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:58:51 -0800 (PST)

> document really necessary?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: The fact that another draft has been posted doesn't mean that it
will ever become an RFC, or if it does, that it will happen in a useful amount
of time. My records indicate that the process that led to RFC 3023 being
published in January, 2001 actually began no later than April, 1999 - and that
was when there were far fewer players and much simpler concerns to address.

Additionally, this is a consensus document that has been through last call and 
is close to being approved for publication. Reopening it now just to remove
something that might possibly in the future be addressed by some other document
makes no sense.

				Ned

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:55:19 -0500

> document really necessary?

Yes;  drafts have no official status. Also, 
draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08.txt is already in the 
RFC-EDITOR queue. When draft-lilley-xml-mediatypes gets published as an 
RFC, it will then be considered an update to both RFC3023 and the RFC 
that draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs becomes. Also, 
draft-lilley-xml-mediatypes will need to incorporate the registration 
form for +xml.

     Tony Hansen