On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:44 AM Jensen Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > OK, so I think your "Interoperability Considerations" section should just be "None". The text you have makes it unclear to me whether there are (or are not) any concerns like what RFC 6838 anticipates. "None" is actually more definitive. -MSK
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
