Subject: [pkix] draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-01

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:56:42 +0200 (MESZ)

Hello,
I'd like to submit a few remarks on the I-D,
  draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-01.

The term "content type" is ambiguous in the context of the IETF;
it might be used as an alias for the "Content-Type:" header field
 of text oriented protocols (like Internet Mail / MIME, HTTP, SIP)
used to refer to an "[Internet] Media Type", or it may designate
the very different concept of "content type" in CMS (e.g. the
eContent object), which usually refers to a higher-level abstract
entity (e.g. data, enveloped, signed, etc.).

Furthermore, both uses refer to a protocol or syntax method
to refer to an instance of what your draft actually intends
to specify: a specific Media Type.
The distinction between the pointer entity and the object
instance being pointed to is important and significant.

Additionally, the draft explicitely aims at addressing various
needs beyond the email context, in particular file storage, as
well.  Therefore, the rationale from BCP 13, RFC 4288 applies:
The original, precise terms from the MIME RFCs 2045 ff., which are
independent of the method and/or application protocol employed,
should be used consistently: "Media Type" or "Internet Media Type".

Therefore, I strongly suggest that all occurrences of
"Content Type", "content type", "MIME content type", etc.
be replaced in the draft (Title, Abstract, body of the text)
with the precise term, "Media Type" or "Internet Media Type".

Editorials (for Section 2):

The initial paragraph of Section 2 might perhaps be rephrased
as follows, to make the intent of the memo and the request to
IANA unambiguous:

   The content type for an attribute certificate is
   application/pkix-attr-cert.
---
   This document registers with IANA "application/pkix-attr-cert" as
   the Internet Media Type for an attribute certificate, according to
   the procedures defined in BCP 13 [RFC4288], using the registration
   information presented below.

[[ This needs an additional (Normative?) Reference to RFC 4288. ]]

In the "Applications which use this media type" clause, please
  s/MIME-complaint/MIME-compliant/ ,
or even use "MIME-like" instead.

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:32:20 -0400

>with the precise term, "Media Type" or "Internet Media Type".

Okay, I'll make that change.  I'll wait until other PKIX WG Last Call 
comments are received. Also, this document is going through IANA 
Media Type review concurrently with this WG Last Call.

>    information presented below.

How about:

    This document registers with IANA the "application/pkix-attr-cert"
    Internet Media Type for use with an attribute certificate as defined
    in [RFC3281].  This registration follows the procedures defined in
    BCP 13 [RFC4288].

>[[ This needs an additional (Normative?) Reference to RFC 4288. ]]

Good addition.  I think informative is fine.

>or even use "MIME-like" instead.

I corrected the spelling.

Thanks for the review,
   Russ

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:41:50 +0200 (MESZ)

Rus Housley wrote:

>> ...[snip]

Thanks / agreed.

>>     ...[snip]

RFC 3281 is yet another good addition here; so: agreed as well!

>> ...

Kind regards,
  Alfred.