On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:02 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 4:03 AM Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The "Interoperability considerations" part of Section 7.1 doesn't seem to
>>> be a
>>> complete answer to the corresponding guidance in Section 6.2 of RFC 6838.
>>>
>>>
>> The authors will be appreciated if you can give any further comments or
>> suggestions on this.
>> For our understanding, the referenced sections in the registration table
>> ("Specification" column) have described the structure and parsing of the
>> corresponding messages. Are they not enough for the "Interoperability
>> considerations"? Could you give any tips about what is missing here? Many
>> thanks.
>>
>
> Sure. The paragraph I'm citing in RFC 6838 says this about
> Interoperability Considerations:
>
> Any issues regarding the interoperable use of types employing this
> structured syntax should be given here. Examples would include
> the existence of incompatible versions of the syntax, issues
> combining certain charsets with the syntax, or incompatibilities
> with other types or protocols.
>
> Your document has this text:
>
> This document specifies formats of conforming messages and the
> interpretation thereof.
>
> What your text tells me is that your document describes what a valid
> instance of this media type's payload looks like. That's sort of obvious
> though. What RFC 6838 is asking for goes beyond that, and gives a few
> examples of what you might want to discuss here.
>
> If there were no prior versions of this media type, and it has no known
> incompatibilities with other protocols or character sets, etc., you can
> simply put "None" in this part of the form. Or if there is something that
> should be considered, this part of the form should include such a
> discussion.
>
Many thanks for your clarification. As far as I know, the new registered
media types do not have any prior versions. They do neither have any known
incompatibility issues. Are you suggesting that we should explicitly put
such statements in the paragraph?
Jensen
>
> -MSK
>
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
