Subject: Last Call comment: draft-rosenberg-sip-app-media-tag-01.txt

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:34:51 -0500

During the discussion of this draft in today's sipping meeting,
Jonathan's description of the document made me realize that
the problem this describes is more general than the solution
described.  A broader solution that encompasses other potential
uses of content negotiation seems to me in order.  I would be
willing to review and contribute to such  a generalization.

I've cc'ed this to the APPs discuss list, to see if there are others
on that list who similarly believe that this problem
is larger and the solution could be as well.  I also encourage
the APPs ADs to request review from APPs review team members
with a background in content negotiation.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:49:56 -0500

Ted Hardie wrote:
>       A broader solution that encompasses other potential
> uses of content negotiation seems to me in order.  

Other than probably looking for an interaction mechanism, rather than one 
through email, does this have any relationship to:

    Content Negotiation for Messaging Services based on Email
    <http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3297.html>?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:01:09 -0500

At 9:49 AM -0500 7/25/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Other than probably looking for an interaction mechanism, rather than one through email, does this have any relationship to:
>

The SIP preference/capabilities work broadly re-uses the CONNEG framework.

This optimization treats a particular problem with "application" as a top-level
type in the SIP context.  Though there are application types in 3297 (application/pdf),
using them in negotiation hits SIP in somewhat different ways.  The question is
whether generalizing the subtype  content negotiation needed there would be
useful for other content negotiation users.
				Ted

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:14:15 -0500

> The SIP preference/capabilities work broadly re-uses the CONNEG framework.

ack.

> useful for other content negotiation users.

At the risk of further showing that I haven't done enough homework, I'll 
nonetheless charge forward with another basic question:

The draft seems to indicate that it's ok in some cases to indicate the ability 
to handle content based only on a top-level MIME type label.  While it 
certainly can be ok to do that in some cases, it seems problematic to expect 
that to work.

In other words, it seems less like the problem is adding the ability to 
specify sub-types under application, than to stop relying only on top-level. 
For example message/rfc822 vs. message/x400.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker