PWG Mail Archive: PWG> FW: Status of application/multiplexed

PWG> FW: Status of application/multiplexed - to become application/vnd .pwg-multiplexed]

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2001 - 15:06:59 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "PWG> Should xhtml-print be a PWG standard? What number should PWG mult iplexed std be?"

    For some reason, this mail message didn't come out on the pwg DL (though a
    later message did), so I'm forwarding it.

    Tom

             -----Original Message-----
            From: Hastings, Tom N
            Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:40
            To: UPnP Print and Imaging WG <IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG> (E-mail)
            Cc: pwg (E-mail)
            Subject: Status of application/multiplexed - to become
    application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed]

            The IETF Area Director, Ned Freed, reviewed Bob's 03 draft (June 26)
    and made a number of good suggestions for things an implementer needs to
    think about to make a robust implementation. Also suggestions as to when a
    bi-directional protocol should be used instead (as we have in XHTML-print
    with URLs).

            None of these suggestion would affect an implementation, unless they
    hadn't thought about some of the problems of implementation. Also none of
    these suggestions would affect the semantics or the actual representation on
    the wire for UPnP with the following exception:

            Ned Freed is strongly resistant to approving the document for
    registration in the IETF MIME tree as 'application/multiplexed'. He
    suggested that it be registered in the vender tree.

            Therefore, we are suggesting that we change the MIME type from
    'application/multiplexed' to 'application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed' and register
    it with IANA (as Don has done for Application/vnd.pwg-xhtml-print+xml).

            Bob has started updating the document to make an 04 IETF
    Internet-Draft and will have it out in the next week or two. If Ned Freed
    won't publish that as an Informational RFC, we can publish it as a PWG
    standard (hence my copying the pwg DL).

            Comments?

            Thanks,
            Tom



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 22 2001 - 15:07:12 EDT