[apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04
SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 13 April 2012 08:54 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BC821F846F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IE0jrzE7c37R for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0659021F85C0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3D8rtoI015796 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1334307240; i=@resistor.net; bh=ZyV3kt+ijXSoIRrTScrGQcJZnSptVh/Lel1bd7ESg40=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=LdeoJMCnQaTY/tlRd4eh6pYtVOjtoGCVkaCQ9mrwGv5Ck26sFVQi3g2Pkwf7RYQjW zkGGTFIm8AA86ocVb8gnq5NzsbBcG5Wr+8OHym07gh0/z7e/Co/gCx5z68QXcV6F9g B5CLTnLomqFiEZiv2NhNn7op2NaDiiX3x0Q4ffQU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1334307240; i=@resistor.net; bh=ZyV3kt+ijXSoIRrTScrGQcJZnSptVh/Lel1bd7ESg40=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=SIXM3hp0fK5OFCxHAvSXzgJDEAvULCKi46X8l+Uv7u3cQpRi1Z6AM6PIED/5dEFt0 MMSkQTqedvECNN125ZLZSKmKDRjTBwbDd2ixoGWgOLulze0pq8XzXb/MqShZDAtO1D sIFE8IWSVIwbL++RtVnESxJdb2ghc667lW47SUZM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120412232341.0ae76d78@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:26:14 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:54:06 -0000
I'll defer to the authors for the following nits on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04. In Section 3.1: "The first procedure is used for registering registrations from IETF Consensus documents, or in rare cases when registering a grandfathered (see Appendix A) and/or otherwise incomplete registration is in the interest of the Internet community." Suggested text: The first procedure is used for registering registrations from IETF documents, or in rare cases when registering a grandfathered (see Appendix A) and/or otherwise incomplete registration is in the interest of the Internet community. The proposed change aligns the text with the "MUST" in the first paragraph of Section 3.1. "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." The text is redundant (see first paragraph of that section). Depending on what the objective is, the above text could be modified to refer to "Standards Action" or "IETF Review". In Section 3.2: "The vendor tree is used for media types associated with publicly available products." Peter raised a question about whether Mozilla is a vendor. It qualifies as a vendor. In Section 3.4: 'Subtype names with "x." as the first facet may be used for types intended exclusively for use in private, local environments. As I-D.ietf-appsawg-xdash is a work product of this working group, it does not make sense to register "x." for use in private, local environment. In Section 4.2.8: "The primary guideline for whether a structured type name suffix should be registerable is that it be described by a readily-available description, preferably within a document published by an established standards organization, and for which there's a reference that can be used in a References section of an RFC." I suggest prefacing "References" with "normative". In Section 4.2.9: "In some cases a single media type may have been widely deployed prior to registrion under multiple names." Typo: registration. "However, a list of deprecated aliases the type is known by MAY be supplied as additional information in order to assist application in processing the media type properly." Suggested text: to assist the software In Section 4.4: "A precise and openly available specification of the format of each media type MUST exist for all types registered in the standards tree and MUST at a minimum be referenced by, if it is not actually included in, the media type registration proposal itself." RFC 5226 has the following description for "Specification Required": "documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible" It's less hassle to align the terms instead of trying to figure out what "precise" or "openly available" means. Suggested text: A permanent and readily available publicly available specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible, of the format of each media type MUST exist for all types registered in the standards tree and MUST at a minimum be referenced by, if it is not actually included in, the media type registration proposal itself. "As such, teferences to or inclusion of format specifications in" Typo: references. In Section 4.6: 'The security considerations section of all registrations is subject to continuing evaluation and modification, and in particular MAY be extended by use of the "comments on media types" mechanism described in Section 5.4 below.' Is the intent to have ongoing evaluation with any updated information added as comments? BTW, "and modification" does not seem correct in the above. Does it mean that a registration made through a specification would require an update of the specification? In Section 4.10: "RFC publication of vendor and personal media type registrations is allowed but not required." I suggest "encouraged" instead of "allowed". "Additionally, any copyright on the registration template MUST allow the IANA to copy it into the IANA registry." There was a question some time back about copyright and IANA registries. I suggest going with the lesser restrictive copyright as inbound rights. That would allow derivative work as long as you don't claim that it is what's in the IANA registry. An alternative argument would be to require inbound rights to the IETF and leave IETF/IANA interaction as an internal issue. "To become Internet Standards, a protocol or data object must go through the IETF standards process." Suggested text: "To become an Internet Standard". "As discussed above, registration of a top-level type requires standards-track processing in the IETF and, hence, RFC publication." Suggested text: As discussed above, registration of a top-level type requires Standards Action in the IETF and, hence, the publication of a RFC on the Standards Track. In Section 5.2: "A web form for registration requests is also available:" This is an opportunity to fix the URL if someone thinks that it is worth the bother. Regards, -sm
- [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-med… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… Larry Masinter
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… Ned Freed