Re: [apps-discuss] Possible IESG statement on IESG processing of MIME type registrations from other SDOs

"Martin J. Dürst" <> Wed, 09 March 2011 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B433A6822 for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:43:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.84
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IM6a8nz+4dw5 for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F2A3A685D for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id p297ikTW020245 for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:44:46 +0900
Received: from (unknown []) by with smtp id 7c1d_2f09_1ad304f2_4a21_11e0_a579_001d096c5782; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:44:46 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([]:59433) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S14E33B8> for <> from <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:44:47 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:44:22 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Possible IESG statement on IESG processing of MIME type registrations from other SDOs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:43:39 -0000

Hello Peter,

On 2011/03/09 12:59, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/8/11 6:34 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

>> I'm not sure I agree that it turns into a formal standards process,
>> but I definitely agree that it's going to be very hard for outsiders
>> to find this statement and do the right thing, absent additional clue.
> Currently folks working within other SDOs ping one or both of the
> Applications Area Directors, who usually say "we know it's not
> mandatory, but it would be helpful if you could write a brief
> Internet-Draft defining your registration request". So outsiders don't
> need to find this statement and do the right thing from the start, and I
> don't think the Apps ADs (or IESG in general) expect that they would.

[Assuming the above also applies to W3C] I'm no longer working for W3C, 
but if I still did, and in particular if I still was in charge of 
coordinating these registration requests, I'd very clearly and 
explicitly not be happy with this. In my view, one of the main points of 
RFC 4288 was exactly to get away from the need to have things in two 
places, and to get away from the need for people who never before and 
never after wrote Internet Drafts to get familiar with all the details.

If we think RFC 4288 has failed, we should fix it. (I for my part don't 
think it has failed, at least not in this respect.)

Also, while the above solves the "find the Statement" problem, it won't 
avoid the problem that outsiders get told different things at different 
stages: First, they get told to follow RFC 4288 (or they might even find 
it themselves), then once they are through review on ietf-types, they 
get told something else.

And the above "it would be helpful" still doesn't answer the question 
why. The assumption from non-IESG people including me is that the main 
or only reason is because the datatracker can only handle IDs. It would 
be helpful (sic) if you and Alex could be clear and frank about this.

Regards,   Martin.

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University