dns media type registration tree

[Keith Moore]

>   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.

> > > - 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. 
 
> > 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.

> > Mumble.  Multi-layer dispatching seems like something to avoid; or
> > at least, to be wary of.
> 
> It's not multi-layer; the URI and the media type remain the only
> dispatch points for requests.  They're just dispatching a very generic
> application.

and you don't think there is ever a need for further dispatching at the XML
level?  in other words, all XML documents are going to the same application?
 
> > > AFAIK, it's the only universally deployed means of mapping strings
> > > to authorities on the Internet.  
> > 
> > In fact, that's not what DNS is.  It's a protocol for finding the
> > network addresses associated with hosts and services.
> 
> Sure, but as a consequence of doing that, it also provides the string
> to authority mapping.

It's not designed for that, and it's not well-suited for that.