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

Ned, care to make a specific recommendation?

I see these options:

    o	punt -- don't specify a registry at all. This is the same
	thing that RFCs 2806 (tel URL), 2848 (PINT) and 3028 (sieve)
	do. They all specify the same type of vendor trees, but do NOT
	specify any registry for the list.

    o	go with reverse domain names

    o	have IANA do a generic registry of vendor names, usable by
	mtqp, 2806, 2848, 3028, future RFCs, etc.

    o	have IANA do a special registry for mtqp vendor options

If I don't hear some specific recommendations, I plan on going with the
punt option.

	Tony

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Note, however, that this registers vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures, not
> vnd.bigcompany or bigcompany. So it isn't strictly correct to say that company
> prefixes are registered.
> 
> The media type reviewer (currently me) does check for inappropriate producer
> name use, however, this isn't as much of check as you might think since due to
> inaction on the part of various producers we have had little choice but to
> allow other people to register their types for them. (The process does give the
> actual producer the right to claim the registration later if they want to.) The
> check ends up being along the lines of "is this really a media type associated
> with this producer".
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is treading dangerously close to the domain name situation. We don't want
> to go there.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Piggybacking off of domain names could work. It is certainly better than having
> a separate registry.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> There's a huge amount of variability in all this in practice.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Bad Idea IMO.
> 
>                                 Ned