Add media type for Controller Documents

[msporny]

The current specification does not have an IANA considerations section to register a media type. The suggested media type is: application/controller.

[longpd]

+1 for this media type (application/controller)

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-11-20

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

1.8. Add media type for Controller Documents (issue controller-document#127)

See github issue controller-document#127.

Brent Zundel: I do not see any conflicts with media type application/controller.

Manu Sporny: This is just a request to the group. What do you think about application/controller? I can raise a PR with IANA to register it.

Ivan Herman: I have no problem with application/controller. I don't really understand how these things work.
… The DID document is essentially a controller document. We define it as application/did.

David Chadwick: I made a comment on another issue. Manu said that there was no clear consensus on changing the name, I pointed out that there was on the last meeting.

Brent Zundel: It was my call, as chair, that while there was consensus that we didn't like controller document, there was no consensus on an alternative.

Joe Andrieu: I agree with DavidC. I do have a sustained objection to an incorrect call about consensus and I will be filing a formal objection.

Brent Zundel: It sounds like we're reopening the renaming conversation.

David Chadwick: +1 JoeAndrieu.

Joe Andrieu: Not one person voted against renaming to Identifier Document.

Joe Andrieu: +1 to getting the PR proposed.

Manu Sporny: I'm going to raise a PR, put application/controller in it. People can comment and we can change to application/identifier or something else in the PR.

Proposed resolution: rename the Controller document to Identifier document. (Brent Zundel)

David Chadwick: I also said that application/identifier would be more appropriate than application/controller and it would better align with application/did.

Brent Zundel: I don't care.

Gabe Cohen: +0.

Brent Zundel: +0.

Joe Andrieu: Apparently you do.

Brent Zundel: Show me the consensus.

David Chadwick: Look at the minutes of the last meeting and the voting.

Joe Andrieu: I don't think this is a valid proposal. This is my objection to you as chair, you shut down conversation.

Brent Zundel: I'm allowed to say I don't want to talk about something. Yet, we have. On the calls, on the issues, in the PRs. I have not seen any suggestion made that had universal agreement.
… I said we shouldn't discuss it any further because we can't come to agreement. I am doing so in my duty as chair to say that we don't have consensus and we have to move on.
… Making a resolution today doesn't shut anything down.
… There's a proposal on the table to change the name.

David Chadwick: Brent look at the voting from last week.

Brent Zundel: If I didn't see the consensus before, show it to me now.

Manu Sporny: +0 (due to something Longley said last week that was of concern to me -- would like to discuss why "Identifier Document" isn't the right word).

Brent Zundel: The proposal is on the table.

Dave Longley: +0 (will not block) would prefer Controlled/Controllable in there because Identifier Document is lacking to me.

Joe Andrieu: +1.

David Chadwick: +1.

Brent Zundel: I see three zeros. I don't see any plus ones.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: We're at time. We'll be past it if we go further.

Phillip Long: As I understand Manu's suggestion the discussion about this was to take place in the PR.

Joe Andrieu: Let the record show that no one objected.

Brent Zundel: I see four zeros and two plus ones. We'll come back after Thanksgiving and set an entire meeting to this topic if that's what's necessary.
… Tell me what you want and I'll make it happen.

Joe Andrieu: There is no objection to this poll.

---

[msporny]

PR #129 has been raised to address this issue. This issue will be closed once PR #129 has been merged.