Subject: [media-types] media-type registration request review

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:39:50 -0500

Hello,
  draft-ietf-lager-specification requests the registration of a new 
media-type. The document has passed WGLC and we would like to have a 
review of the request. Herein the extract of the media-type form from 
the draft. Thanks in advance for the review

Marc, lager wg co-chair

<extract>
11.1.  Media Type Registration

    The media type "application/lgr+xml" should be registered to denote
    transmission of label generation rulesets that are compliant with
    this specification, in accordance with [RFC6838].

    Type name: application

    Subtype name: lgr+xml

    Required parameters: None.

    Optional parameters: charset (as for application/xml per [RFC7303])

    Security considerations: As for application/xml per [RFC7303]

    Interoperability considerations: As for application/xml per 
[RFC7303]

    Published specification: This document.

    Applications which use this media type: Software using label
    generation rulesets, including registry applications and client
    validators.

    Additional information: None.

    Magic number: None.

    File extension: .lgr or .xml

    Macintosh file-type code: None.

    Object Identifiers: None.

    Intended Usage: Common

    Personal and email address for further information: See the Authors
    of this document.

    Change Controller: IESG
</extract>

---

From: Mark Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:23:30 -0500

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]> wrote:
> media-type. The document has passed WGLC and we would like to have a review
> of the request. Herein the extract of the media-type form from the draft.
> Thanks in advance for the review
>
> Marc, lager wg co-chair
>
> <extract>

I suggesting moving section 12 of the draft here.

>
>    Interoperability considerations: As for application/xml per [RFC7303]
>

Can you be more specific, as the registry information will be stored
and viewed out of the context of the LAGER WG. Maybe "Software using
IDNA label generation rulesets"? That's just a guess on my part, as
I'm not very familiar with nomenclature in that space.

>    File extension: .lgr or .xml

.xml is associated with application/xml so I'd just stick with .lgr.

Looks good otherwise.

---

From: Mark Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 15:06:39 -0500

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The label generation rulesets specification is not limited to IDNA.
>
> Software using label generation rulesets for internationalized identifiers,
> such IDNs, including...

Fair enough, but there's still a fairly specific scope there that
isn't reflected in the description.

> Apparently there are some other media types that use .xml., so what are the
> conventions?

Hopefully not in the IANA registry, as that would make a file
extension to media type mapping ambiguous. I wouldn't be surprised if
some snuck through, but I hope to save you from the pain that would
ensue if these files were ever needed to be served from a file system
through a Web server.

In practice, curators of mime.type files like Apache's (hand curated
by Roy Fielding) would ensure that any ambiguity was removed, and you
can see in this case that 'xml' is associated only with
'application/xml';

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/mime.types

nginx unfortunately defaults to text/xml but at least it's a unique mapping;

https://github.com/nginx/nginx/blob/master/conf/mime.types

---

From: Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:43:42 -0800

Software using label generation rulesets for internationalized 
identifiers, such IDNs, including...

> .xml is associated with application/xml so I'd just stick with .lgr.

Apparently there are some other media types that use .xml., so what are 
the conventions?

A./

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:07:08 +0900

> I suggesting moving section 12 of the draft here.

I don't think that's necessary, and it would remove the "Security 
Considerations" section that's needed in every RFC. I'd suggest to 
replace "As for application/xml per [RFC7303]" with something such as
"See the security considerations for application/xml in [RFC7303] and 
the specific security considerations for Label Generation Rulesets in 
XML in RFC XXXX (RFC Editor/IANA, please replace XXXX with the final 
number of this document)".

>>     Published specification: This document.

The template will be stored independently of the containing RFC, so 
instead of "This document", use something like "RFC XXXX (RFC 
Editor/IANA, please replace XXXX with the final number of this document)

Regards,   Martin.

> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
> .
>