* Cullen Jennings wrote: > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Registration of media type application/p2p-overlay+xml
There is no reason to include this part in the specification. > Type name: application > > Subtype name: p2p-overlay+xml > > Required parameters: none > > Optional parameters: none Why are you using the +xml convention but do not specify the type in a manner consistent with application/xml? Without a very good reason I'd think you should either add the "charset" parameter or drop the "+xml". > Encoding considerations: Must be binary encoded. The contents MUST > be valid XML compliant with the relax NG grammar specified in RFC- > AAAA and use the UTF-8[RFC3629] character encoding. This should either just say "binary" or just reference RFC 3023 as RFC 3023 suggests. > Interoperability considerations: Same as application/xml as defined > in [RFC3023]. If there are no known interoperability issues beyond those of the type application/xml, that is what you should say; the considerations here are certainly not the same. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
