On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 4:03 AM Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> The "Interoperability considerations" part of Section 7.1 doesn't seem to
>> be a
>> complete answer to the corresponding guidance in Section 6.2 of RFC 6838.
>>
>>
> The authors will be appreciated if you can give any further comments or
> suggestions on this.
> For our understanding, the referenced sections in the registration table
> ("Specification" column) have described the structure and parsing of the
> corresponding messages. Are they not enough for the "Interoperability
> considerations"? Could you give any tips about what is missing here? Many
> thanks.
>
Sure. The paragraph I'm citing in RFC 6838 says this about
Interoperability Considerations:
Any issues regarding the interoperable use of types employing this
structured syntax should be given here. Examples would include
the existence of incompatible versions of the syntax, issues
combining certain charsets with the syntax, or incompatibilities
with other types or protocols.
Your document has this text:
This document specifies formats of conforming messages and the
interpretation thereof.
What your text tells me is that your document describes what a valid
instance of this media type's payload looks like. That's sort of obvious
though. What RFC 6838 is asking for goes beyond that, and gives a few
examples of what you might want to discuss here.
If there were no prior versions of this media type, and it has no known
incompatibilities with other protocols or character sets, etc., you can
simply put "None" in this part of the form. Or if there is something that
should be considered, this part of the form should include such a
discussion.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
