Re: accept-types [was Re: Fwd: Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-simple-chat-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)]

On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote:

> - I am a little concerned that if you only allow message/CPIM, that you
>  will be cutting off a point of extensibility. Some future extension
>  may need to add something that requires a new mime type here -
>  presumably one that is a functional superset of message/CPIM. But
>  a mandatory requirement to include *only* message/CPIM will exclude
>  such a future focus from being backward compatible with this spec.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, since there's interop behavior that depends on it's use.  If you use something _other_ than message/CPIM, some one will need to specify how you handle the behavior that is dependent on it.

A possible compromise might be something like "SHOULD include only message/CPIM. While other types might be useful in the future, their use is out of scope for this specification. Any chat mechanism that uses a wrapper other than message/CPIM will need to specify how to encode and interpret sender and recipient information to achieve similar behaviors as in this document."