Re: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-media-type-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Bruce,

Please consider what Stephan Casner says. I totally agree with his response. I simply want to make a few comments.

I think you really should ask yourself how it comes that the current process has been used in 6-7 years and for more than 70 registrations without anyone raising any issues. I take this as an sign that the current process works and is viable. It can only benefit from a bit of clarification. For example in the area of text. Where all we desire is clarification on the possibility to register types that are restricted to RTP without the strict requirement on basic parsing.

I also question if the MIME world really can continue using that criteria themselves. Is this really working, it seems not in the application I am using. I don't want to see the html formating in my browser, even if it is readable.

Bruce Lilly wrote:

I have suggested grandfathering existing RTP-related registrations in
a separate RTP registry.  That would prevent further confusion and
would give the RTP registry a separate sandbox with clean sand and new
toys.  Some small amount of copying work would be required, and of course
registration procedures for both registries would require some minor
tweaking.


We don't want a new sandbox, moving from the current is such work that it isn't worth it with the small gain and great risk for confusion it creates. What I suggest is that we clean up the current sandbox so that we can reduce the confusion on what is in it and what is allowed.


Because of widely-deployed mission-critical MIME applications, any such
"clean up" cannot change the fundamental rules for text media types, as
detailed earlier.  We're not talking about mere entertainment applications,
we're talking about email and things like Internet fax, voice messaging,
and EDI.

I am not intending to breaking MIME based applications. I want to avoid breaking any of the applications, MIME or RTP. But you seem to be fine saying that breaking RTP does not count, it isn't mission critical, despite it being a hugely deployed protocol. Separating the registries will cause confusion, generate errors and inconsistencies in a number of standard documents IETF's and others.

Re workload:
o for whom?

A separate registry would mean that AVT would need to perform the following work:

- Write a new registration RFC
- Update the 70+ registrations documented in 35+ RFC
- Inform a number of standard organizations or consortium like ITU, ETSI, 3GPP, 3GPP2, DLNA, etc about the new rules and have them update their specifications.

Are you volunteering to see these changes thou?

Regards

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]