dns media type registration tree

Larry Masinter LMM at acm.org
Tue Jan 13 20:49:27 CET 2004

I'm wondering if we should consider a similar DNS-basis
for "private" URI schemes.  I've been late in producing
a new version of 


partly because of my uneasiness with IANA getting into the
business of registering organization names.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-types-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:ietf-types-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:16 AM
> To: ietf-types at alvestrand.no
> Subject: dns media type registration tree
> Hi,
> I wanted to express my *strong* support for the recently 
> published draft
> about the "dns" media type registration tree[1].  I think this is long
> overdue, and I thank Mark for devising such a straightforward 
> mechanism
> for decentralizing the media type assignment process (you 
> don't want to
> know what I was going to propose 8-).
> I would like to propose one substantive change to the document though.
> As I see it, there are two objectives that we'd really like 
> to achieve;
> a decentralized namespace, and dereferenceable identifiers 
> (for all the
> reasons in [2]).  Mark's draft ably addresses the former, but doesn't
> seem to treat the latter as an objective, although the "doc" parameter
> is a step in that direction.  I think a fairly small tweak can give us
> both.
> What I propose is that the doc parameter be replaced by a "base"
> parameter whose value is a URI that is intended to permit the media
> type name itself to be used as a relative URI.  For example, if we had
> the media type "text/dns.foo.example.com", with a base parameter value
> of "http://example.com/mtype/" then the authoritative URI for 
> the media
> type would be "http://example.com/mtype/text/dns.foo.example.com"
> (see the discussion[3] about the relative URI approach by the 
> W3C TAG).
> The document should be clear that the resultant URI is the 
> authoritative
> URI for the media type.  It would still be optional, though 
> I'd like to
> say that we recommend that it SHOULD be used, and SHOULD be
> dereferenceable using currently ubiquitous technologies.
> Thoughts?
>  [1] 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-dns-media
>  [2] 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-connolly-w3c-accessi
>  [3] http://www.w3.org/2003/12/15-tag-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

More information about the Ietf-types mailing list