October 2001 - Ietf-types

Registration of MIME media type application/vnd.surety.tokenstore
by Greg Thompson 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

MIME media type name: application MIME subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.surety.tokenstore Required parameters: none Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: Surety Token Store files contain binary data, and must be transferred in such a way as to guarantee that no loss of information takes place. Security considerations: Surety Token Store files contain no executable code. Interoperability considerations: The Surety Token Store file format is designed such that compliant files may be parsed and generated on any platform, independent of machine byte-ordering and word size. As such, they may be used with any supported product in the Surety Digital Notary Service on any supported platform. Published specification: none Applications which use this media type: Surety Digital Notary Service Additional information: Magic number(s): none File extension(s): .sts Macintosh File Type Code(s): none Person & email address to contact for further information: standards(a)surety.com Intended usage: common Author/Change controller: Written by Greg Thompson. This type may be revised by any employee of Surety, Inc.

2 1

RE: Registration of MIME media type application/vnd.nokia-mrv+xml
by Leon.Hurst＠nokia.com 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

Sorry but I have only just been registered to this list so have missed all comments except for Dan's email below. I seems that the archive for this mailing list was not working when I accessed it. Could someone please direct me to the primary archive (not a mirror), so I can see everyones comments. Many thanks, Leon. -----Original Message----- From: ext Dan Kohn [mailto:dan@dankohn.com] Sent: 31 October, 2001 10:08 To: 'Keith Moore'; owner-ietf-types(a)dokka.maxware.no; Hurst Leon (NMP/Helsinki) Cc: ietf-types(a)iana.org Subject: RE: Registration of MIME media type application/vnd.nokia-mrv+xml In addition, the registrant should (re?)read section 7.1 of RFC 3023, and strongly consider referencing that document. - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-650-327-2600> Essays announced on <mailto:dankohn-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@CS.UTK.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 09:44 To: owner-ietf-types(a)dokka.maxware.no Cc: ietf-types(a)iana.org Subject: Re: Registration of MIME media type application/vnd.nokia-mrv+xml there are lots of problems with this proposed registration. it doesn't say anything at all about what MRV document is, nor does it include a reference to the specification. as such the content type is ambiguous. the encoding considerations section is poorly worded. I'm not sure what a "a 7bit character set with an IETF character encoding mechanism" is. it would be sufficient to say that these documents need to be encoded in base64 for transmission over text-based email. the security considerations section is vague. I can't tell what is meant by > Authentication: Optional part of a Digital Rights Management system in which > MRV is used. but any system which incorporates DRM is likely to have considerable security risks - including that identity of the reader will be inappropriately disclosed or leaked to other parties, or that there are circumstances under which a reader will be denied his legal rights to use the document by the DRM system (for instance, when fair use rights are violated). these risks need to be analyzed and disclosed. > Threats: The MRV MIME content type definition provides for the inclusion of > arbitrary content information. Administrators for MIME implementations that > support this content type SHOULD take every standard precaution to assure > the activation of MRV content is NOT automatic, but is only performed after > confirmation by the recipient. In addition, administrators may want to > perform virus scans of MRV content information. this provides no information about how such threats may be ameliorated. furthermore, it is difficult to see how such threats could be ameliorated unless the specification for the encapsulation format were made public. 'confirmation by the recipient' is not sufficient to ameilorate such threats, because the recipient is not generally aware of the threats posed by the individual contents. > Interoperability considerations: Implementations that have support for the > mandatory features of this content type will greatly increase the chances of > interoperating with other implementations supporting this content type. > Conformance to this content type requires an implementation to support every > mandatory feature. that's a meaningless statement in this context. this application should be denied or delayed until there is a published specification which may be reviewed, and until the security risks are adequately documented. Keith

1 0

Changed list server software for ietf-types list
by Harald Alvestrand 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

I have changed the list software for the IETF-types list from majordomo running on dokka.alvestrand.no to Mailman running on eikenes.alvestrand.no You should not notice any change until you want to unsubscribe - although you will get a note every month telling you how to unsubscribe or change your subscription. The addresses that were previously on the "allowed to post" list are now added to the list as "nomail" members - there are 2 ways of achieving this functionality in Mailman, and this is one of them. Comments sought. The main reason for the change is to get an interface that is simpler for the list administrator to use when approving non-subscriber postings and deleting the (HUGE amounts of) spam sent to the list. Thank you for your patience. Harald Alvestrand

1 0

RE: Registration of MIME media type application/vnd.nokia-mrv+xml
by Dan Kohn 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

In addition, the registrant should (re?)read section 7.1 of RFC 3023, and strongly consider referencing that document. - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-650-327-2600> Essays announced on <mailto:dankohn-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@CS.UTK.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 09:44 To: owner-ietf-types(a)dokka.maxware.no Cc: ietf-types(a)iana.org Subject: Re: Registration of MIME media type application/vnd.nokia-mrv+xml there are lots of problems with this proposed registration. it doesn't say anything at all about what MRV document is, nor does it include a reference to the specification. as such the content type is ambiguous. the encoding considerations section is poorly worded. I'm not sure what a "a 7bit character set with an IETF character encoding mechanism" is. it would be sufficient to say that these documents need to be encoded in base64 for transmission over text-based email. the security considerations section is vague. I can't tell what is meant by > Authentication: Optional part of a Digital Rights Management system in which > MRV is used. but any system which incorporates DRM is likely to have considerable security risks - including that identity of the reader will be inappropriately disclosed or leaked to other parties, or that there are circumstances under which a reader will be denied his legal rights to use the document by the DRM system (for instance, when fair use rights are violated). these risks need to be analyzed and disclosed. > Threats: The MRV MIME content type definition provides for the inclusion of > arbitrary content information. Administrators for MIME implementations that > support this content type SHOULD take every standard precaution to assure > the activation of MRV content is NOT automatic, but is only performed after > confirmation by the recipient. In addition, administrators may want to > perform virus scans of MRV content information. this provides no information about how such threats may be ameliorated. furthermore, it is difficult to see how such threats could be ameliorated unless the specification for the encapsulation format were made public. 'confirmation by the recipient' is not sufficient to ameilorate such threats, because the recipient is not generally aware of the threats posed by the individual contents. > Interoperability considerations: Implementations that have support for the > mandatory features of this content type will greatly increase the chances of > interoperating with other implementations supporting this content type. > Conformance to this content type requires an implementation to support every > mandatory feature. that's a meaningless statement in this context. this application should be denied or delayed until there is a published specification which may be reviewed, and until the security risks are adequately documented. Keith

1 0