Subject: [Json] is it possible to re-register application/json with a profile media type parameter?

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:11:06 -0800

hello.

during the JSON WG meeting, there was a brief exchange about the 
question whether it would be even possible to use 4627bis to introduce a 
"profile" media type parameter. regardless of whether that's a goal or 
not, i simply wanted to check if there is a problem with it.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-4.3 says:

"[...] the names, values, and meanings of any parameters MUST be fully 
specified when a media type is registered in the standards tree, [...]"

as well as:

"New parameters SHOULD NOT be defined as a way to introduce new 
functionality in types registered in the standards tree, although new 
parameters MAY be added to convey additional information that does not 
otherwise change existing functionality."

i believe that this would apply to a "profile" parameter if that 
parameter was based on the RFC6096 model of a profile, meaning that 
anything that represents a profiled media type representation, also 
represents the media type in its unprofiled way.

this means that 4627bis could add a profile media type parameter, and 
the I-JSON draft could use this parameter to expose the I-JSONness of 
representations on the media type. this indication would be optional, 
and old implementations not knowing anything about I-JSON or the profile 
media type parameter would keep working. one possible source of friction 
is that some implementations might get confused by this parameter 
showing up, even though the proper behavior would be to ignore 
unrecognized parameters.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked]  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:29:08 +0900

Hello Erik,

I think that in terms of process lawyering, I wouldn't worry too much.

What matters is 1) whether this profile parameter really makes sense 
(see separate discussion), and 2) what happens with actual 
implementations when they see a profile parameter.

Regards,   Martin.