Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/12/12 12:09 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Just a reminder that this WGLC ends today.  If anyone has any
> reviews to report or comments to provide, please do so.  I’d like
> to hand it over to Barry this weekend if possible.

Overall this looks very good. I have a few comments.

1. I wonder about this:

   In the case of registration for the IETF itself, the registration
   proposal MUST be published as an IETF Consensus RFC, which can be on
   the Standards Track, a BCP, Informational, or Experimental.

Given the descriptions of Informational and Experimental documents in
RFC 2026, I don't think we can say that they reflect IETF consensus.
See in particular:

   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.

2. It's not clear to me where open-source projects fit into the
taxonomy. One might think that an organization like Mozilla is a
"vendor" or "producer", according to Section 3.2:

   The vendor tree is used for media types associated with publicly
   available products.  "Vendor" and "producer" are construed very
   broadly in this context and are considered equivalent.  Note that
   industry consortia as well as non-commercial entities that do not
   qualify as recognized standards bodies can quite appropriately
   register media types in the vendor tree.

However, Section 3.3 seems to add a further proviso regarding the
commercial nature of a vendor or producer:

   Registrations for media types created experimentally or as part of
   products that are not distributed commercially may be registered in
   the personal or vanity tree.

So, is commercial distribution a necessary feature of a vendor or
producer?

3. I don't know if the unregistered "x." tree is truly consistent with
draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash. I'm not saying it needs to be, but that
would IMHO be desirable. Note that the xdash document, despite the
name, is not limited to the literal string "x-" but applies more
generally to similar constructs, such as "x.". Given that we are
significantly easing the registration process in
draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs, do we still feel a need to even
mention the "x." tree?

I might provide further comments later today...

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk+HT9AACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzLfwCgpo9UmUJ2GubNgzNrf77rl/DE
VaUAn3HPMEu0y1sCcrZhqE6sapr13oqh
=wkGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----