Philipp Hoschka (ph@w3.org)
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:11:30 +0200
Graham Klyne wrote:
...
> >is there a good reason to have the same format registered twice
> >under different names ?
>
> I would say that change control of a format that is part of an IETF
> standard might be one. (But I defer to IETF procedure experts on this.)
I would presume that this would require that the current owner of
change control gives up his change control, since this is at least
required for intellectual property reasons (copyrights, patents etc.).
But I'm not an IETF procedure expert.
> >draft-ema-vpim-wav-00.txt appears to be redoing work that has already
> >been done in the RFC I quote. The only difference is that it does not
> >actually define the format, but provides references to its definition.
> >According to the MIME type registration rules, this is enough.
>
> I assume you are referring here to RFC 2361.
Your assumption is correct
> I cannot see a registration of MIME type audio/vnd.wave in this. I also
> note that IANA does not list any registration for audio/vnd.wave.
As already pointed out by others, the RFC mentions the MIME type
audio/vnd.wave many times (with "the RFC" i am referring to RFC 2361).
You are correct that it does not show up in the IANA
registry. I have heard, however, that RFC 2361 has been discussed
on the ietf-types list, and also in the IETF Audio/Video transport
(AVT) working group. I defer to people who have been on this list
longer than me to give the full history of this. The responsible
chair of the AVT WG (Steve Casner, copied above) should also be
able to provide more information.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Mar 19 2002 - 01:04:39 IDT