Re: Another comment on draft-ietf-http-feature-reg-03.txt

[Andy Mutz <mutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will submit an edited feature-reg draft by Friday.  I don't
have a clear idea how to proceed on ASN.1 identifiers (I am not 
familiar with them right now), so if we think that's important
I'd like some more help there.

The x. tree was left in the table of contents by mistake in
the last draft; experience with x. trees is not positive and
URN's (of some flavor) are a better direction I believe.

I'd like to see more comment on local vs global trees, but first
glance they identical in functionality and not helpful.

Those are the substantive points I recall, and I'll comment
on editorials later.

Andy Mutz


(resend)

>>It has occurred to me that it would be a good idea for feature registration
>>to associate both a textual name *and* an ASN.1 object identifier with each
>>registered media feature.  This would, I believe, help to make life easier
>>for feature data to be carried in both text- and binary-message protocols
>>(e.g. HTTP/SMTP and LDAP/SNMP).

Larry Masinter wrote:
>I think this would be a fine idea, except that we probably need some way of
>mapping media types and languages into the same space, and probably
>also some of the values of those features that have enumerated values.

>Are the author(s) planning on revising draft-ietf-http-feature-reg-03.txt
>(to become draft-ietf-conneg-feature-reg-00.txt) before the next IETF?


--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mutz                          |   email:  andy_mutz@xxxxxx 
Internet Imaging Operation           |   Phone:  +1 408 447 4439
Imaging Solutions Division           |   Page:   +1 888 502 7333
11000 Wolfe Road 42UO                |   
Cupertino, California, USA.          |   Radio:  KF6FUT
---------------------------------------------------------------