Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Re: sdp-new unregistered media types

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:10:32 +0300

Hi,
If you deprecate the data and control MIME type that will take away the
defined distinction between application data and control in 5.14. So
everything that is not audio video or text will be application. 
For example if we want to add far end camera control will it be application.
Does that make sense or do we still want to enable such distinctions.

Roni

*************************************
Roni Even
Polycom Israel

Tel: +972-3-9251200
Cell: +972-55-481099
email:[email-masked]
*******************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Handley [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Colin Perkins
Cc: Rod.Walsh; van; mmusic; magnus.westerlund
Subject: [MMUSIC] Re: sdp-new unregistered media types

>On Thursday 06 May 2004 10:18, [email-masked] wrote:
>> Is Magnus's suggestion, to 'depreciate' "data" and "control" from SDP
>> until they are IANA registered, feasible or likely?
>
>I submitted -16 yesterday, without making that change. Unless there is 
>strong consensus from the group to do so, I wish to avoid changes that are 
>not backwards compatible.

Does anyone use "data" and "control"?  

The IANA considerations (at least in -15) only specify a SHOULD for
these matching the top level MIME types:

  9.2.1 Media types ("media")

   The set of media types is intended to be small and SHOULD NOT be
   extended except under rare circumstances.  The same rules should
   apply for media names as for top-level MIME content types, and where
   possible the same name should be registered for SDP as for MIME.  For
   media other than existing MIME top-level content types, a
   standards-track RFC MUST be produced for a new top-level content type
   to be registered, and the registration MUST provide good
   justification why no existing media name is appropriate (the
   "Standards Action" policy of RFC 2434 [5].'

So the lack of a MIME Content Type for these isn't a problem, but
there should be a way to register media formats under these with IANA
- I believe currently there isn't.

But if there's no interoperability report for "data" and "control",
they should clearly be deprecated before moving to draft standard.

BTW, the first part of section 9 refers to a future registration of
application/sdp, but this is already registered, so if you haven't
already removed in from -16, you probably should do so.

Cheers,
	Mark

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Mark Handley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 13:29:35 +0100

>Does that make sense or do we still want to enable such distinctions.

application as a MIME type is something of a catchall - it really
should be called "misc" in my opinion.

For example, SDP's MIME type is application/sdp
Now SDP isn't really an application, and it isn't really application
data - it's really control data or metadata.

I added "control" (long before SDP types were associated with MIME
types) because I prefered to make the distinction between data and
metadata - I thought and still think adds clarity.  But the arguments
both for and against are not really strong.

Now, as to IETF process:

 - if "control" isn't being used in an interoperable manner, we can't
   progress it to draft standard.

 - if "control" is being used in an interoperable manner by a few
   people, we should not deprecate it.  The IANA considerations for
   SDP are entirely consistent with not needed to have a MIME type for
   this, although there should be a registry for the media formats.

 - if the use of "control" is widespread, we should probably push for
   a MIME Content Type to be registered for it.

I assume Colin probably knows best what the current deployment status
is, so I won't comment on that.

 - Mark

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:35:50 +0100

On Thursday 06 May 2004 13:29, Mark Handley wrote:
> >For example if we want to add far end camera control will it be
> > application. Does that make sense or do we still want to enable such
> > distinctions.
>

Actually, if people are using "control" or "data", it would be helpful if 
they could speak out. :)

Colin