dns media type registration tree

[ned.freed at mrochek.com]

> >   While public exposure and review of media types using the DNS tree
> >   is not required, using the ietf-types at iana.org mailing list for
> >   review is strongly encouraged to improve the quality of those
> >   specifications.
> >
> > Would that address your concern?

> not really.  I have yet to see why using DNS names, or the DNS itself,
> for type registration is a good idea.

I've been following this discussion for a while now, and while it pains me to
object to something that would lessen my own workload, I find that I have to
agree with Keith about this. The stability problems associated with DNS names
are just too great.

> > > > - it enables new authorities to establish their own review
> > > > policies over their part of the media tree namespace
> > >
> > > This is NOT inherently a good thing.  There aren't many restrictions
> > > in the current IETF policy, and relaxing these few restrictions is
> > > probably not in the best interests of the network.  Sure enough,
> > > some other organizations  would also do due diligence in reviewing
> > > new types; some would do a better job than IETF.  But encouraging
> > > anybody with a domain name to register new types will certainly
> > > result in less review overall.
> >
> > After thinking about it some more, I'd like to retract my previous
> > claim; the DNS tree does not enable this, because it's *already*
> > enabled.  Consider the WAPforum and some of their media types such as
> > vnd.wap-wbxml, vnd-wap-wmlc, and vnd.wap.wmlscriptc.  These were all
> > run through the WAPforum and its processes.  They were also reviewed
> > by the IETF as part of the registration procedure.

> additional review is of course not the same thing as circumventing IETF
> review.
 
Right. The WAP forum went through the process and registered their
types. The requirements the process imposed were minimal, but not
nonexistant.

> > > You're talking about the DNS namespace as a whole; I'm talking about
> > > individual DNS names.  I agree that there will be tremendous
> > > pressure to maintain the DNS name space even if (say) the DNS
> > > protocol changes. But we've seen numerous examples where DNS names
> > > were allowed to expire and were then reassigned; we've also seen a
> > > few examples where DNS names were taken away from their original
> > > owners and reassigned for apparently arbitrary reasons.
> >
> > Yep.  Nothing's perfect.  If you can do any better while permitting
> > decentralized dereferencing, I'm all ears.

> that's the problem in a nutshell - it's not clear to me that
> "decentralized dereferencing" (much less "decentralized review" or
> "decentralized assignment") is a good idea.

Exactly. Given the huge amount of damage that's been inflicted on the
world by badly designed media types, I am forced to see further reduction
of the barriers as a reckless step in the wrong direction.

				Ned