Subject: Re: [sieve] Sieve-in-XML MIME type and file extension

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:58:06 +0000

Hi Ned/Stephan,

[email-masked] wrote:
 [...]

>> For example, analogous to
>> application/sieve and the .siv/.sieve extension, the XML variant could
>> be specified as application/sieve+xml and with a .xsieve or perhaps a
>> .sieve.xml file extension. I haven't seen any discussions about this on
>> the mailing list.
>
>> But maybe I am just nitpicking, since I don't have a direct
>> application/need for this myself. :)
>
> No, I think it's a good idea. I just don't quite know what process to 
> use.
> Alexey, do you have any thoughts on this?

I think writing a short draft with the registration would be the best 
way. Unless you want to revise RFC 5784?

Regards,
Alexey

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT)

> way.

Would that draft simply be a means of conveying the type to the IESG, or
would it need to be published as an RFC?

> Unless you want to revise RFC 5784?

I'd rather not, but I'd also rather not publish an RFC just to do this
registration. So if publiction is needed it seems to me that a revision
would have the advantage of getting all the info in one place.

				Ned

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:18:54 -0400

All you need to do is create the registration, circulate it on the 
ietf-types list for comment, then submit it to IANA. It does *not* need 
to be in an RFC by itself.

     Tony

On 11/1/2010 1:10 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> I was just reading through the Sieve in XML spec in RFC 5784. I noticed
>> that something seems to be omitted: a mime type for this essentially new
>> content type.
>
> Yeah, I realized we messed up on that a while ago when I noticed that the
> ical-in-xml draft includes such a registration. I'm kind of at a loss 
> as to how
> to fix it at this point - I don't think we can add a registration as 
> an errata.
> I suppose we could simply write up a registration as a separate 
> document and
> ask the IESG to approve it.
>
>> Would it be useful to define a mime type for sieve-in-xml
>> content and an associated file extension?
>
> I hadn't thought about the file extension part, but yes, I believe it 
> makes
> sense to do this.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sieve mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:39:40 +0000

> would it need to be published as an RFC?

The latter. Unless you can convince IESG that Sieve WG is another SDO ;-).

Multiple RFCs just registering MIME types were reviewed/approved by IESG 
in the last year.

> would have the advantage of getting all the info in one place.

Your choice really.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:12:47 +0000

Tony Hansen wrote:

> ietf-types list for comment, then submit it to IANA. It does *not* 
> need to be in an RFC by itself.

Hmm, I don't believe that is the rule that IESG was enforcing. Only 
other recognized SDOs can register a new MIME type in the Standards tree 
without an RFC.