IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-03

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Thu, 10 May 2012 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6173E21F85DD; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.387, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D0Fg9yd4bPT0; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BC621F85E6; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT6tzecTivdnzba78UyFOw5HVMfI94SvZ@postini.com; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:32 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q4A7pKIf005257; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nahub02.corp.adobe.com (nahub02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.98]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q4A7pJYr024928; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com (10.5.77.61) by nahub02.corp.adobe.com (10.8.189.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.192.1; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:18 -0700
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com ([fe80::d55c:7209:7a34:fcf7%12]) with mapi; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:18 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset.all@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:51:17 -0700
Thread-Topic: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-03
Thread-Index: Ac0uf3zJ9SBCEVyTR0ezOtqdasiUGw==
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AE4742F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:51:33 -0000

Sorry for the delay, hope this is in time.
==========
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-03
Title: Update to MIME regarding Charset Parameter Handling in  Textual Media Types
Reviewer: Larry Masinter	
Review Date: 5/10/2012
IETF Last Call Date: (unknown)
IESG Telechat Date: 5/10/2012

Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as a Best Current Practice, although I have concerns, I don't feel strongly.

The document is being offered as Standards Track. But the document's effect is just to change the guidance for future media type registrations, which requirement should have an immediate effect, and which don't have a way of noting "independent interoperable implementations".  I know there is some fashion to have fewer BCPs and more "standards track", but I don't see how that applies here. 

Major Issues:  none

Minor Issues: 
I wish there were more analysis of the impact of confusion over default character set for new vs. old media types, e.g., old types which happen to not be registered.
I am concerned about whether there are pipelines that expect ASCII text if the content/type is text/something without any charset parameter.
I am concerned that people will take this as a license to change the default charset for text/plain to UTF8 in their implementations, yielding interoperability problems.

Nits: none noted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email