Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt

I was trying to emulate MIME vendor content-types, where this hasn't
been a problem. After a company is renamed, it could continue to use the
existing name, or register another name -- it's their choice.

The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are
registered:

   Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading
   facet "vnd.".  That may be followed, at the discretion of the
   registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer
   (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the
   producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product
   designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures).

I would just expect the vendor prefix in the namespace to be registered.
It would be even better if we could bounce off another, existing
registry. 

IANA's vendor content-types aren't all that regular, because of the
muddying of the namespace waters (letting media names be at the 2nd
level, as in vnd.mudpie vs. vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). So it would
be difficult to bounce off that registry. That's why dns names would be
better.

How quickly do dns names get reused after a company gets renamed? When a
company renames itself, how quickly do they usually relinquish their old
domain names, and how quickly after that do they get picked up by other
companies?

Another alternative would be to create a vendor namespace registry
that's divorced from mtqp, and bounce off of that registry. How useful
would that be?

	Tony

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> 
> > At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards
> > the reversed domain name solution.
> 
> Domain names aren't stickky enough for this. We (Esys, no Simeon,
> no Execmail. Wait, make that Messagingdirect, er I _really_ meant
> ACI) are ample proof of this :-(
> 
> Would we need to (IANA) register each item, or just reserve a vendor prefix
> in the namespace?
> 
> --lyndon