> Merging the thread this early didn't help this conversation. I am sure I have > missed replying to some of my points that you responded to.
Sorry about that, I did not realise it. There is one important part that was missed, I put it in this message separate from the previous reply to your message. It was the following, your reply and our suggestion for "application/tls-record" similar to "application/dns-message". > In fact, I suggest the media types be “warc+tls” and, if really needed (sure > some parts of the web are old), “warc+ssl” Then register those two suffices. > At least, I think that’s a reasonable idea. It might be that warc-tls and > warc-ssl is better. This is an option. The problem I see here is that "application/warc-tls" (or "application/warc+tls") suggests that the data referenced by it is somehow unique to the WARC, while it is not. It is simply a copy of a entire SSL/TLS record, with no changes made to it. Perhaps a possibility would be "application/tls-record"? This is similar to how "application/dns-message" is defined in [RFC 8484 section 6.](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8484#section-6) as a "single message of the DNS on-the-wire format defined in [Section 4.2.1 of [RFC1035]](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1035#section-4.2.1)". _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
