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

SM <> Thu, 12 April 2012 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F6421F8659 for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.464
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XVhHy2JRGDAk for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBD321F8535 for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3CNrnPM019507; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1334274837;; bh=52uAj9cZ2Qz0Hc/fMMqF2SGH4WosVUGZ9WmKYFmkKjc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VlRlDaXNX0Uh1yUeoNv/HhsJdmHmWaiXnmvF9FS2fSAyJiAY/Fu11HCwqRZ1Eiow/ rjEcQaqtXvZ6+Ld0W1D9SheTqvzPpnGsUhHVnDWODA4ynobc6kIvJfOTjfIaBROZoK 48Ad7pmhVZYvO6357cuhFEw81TUg5An+fwCStGpw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1334274837;; bh=52uAj9cZ2Qz0Hc/fMMqF2SGH4WosVUGZ9WmKYFmkKjc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GCTJqsn8bXe8Jz9vzIsBep4q6LOQBPxqFej3hThzLwHA/fvOfDauBJKhAevvR+aH9 aGpvrDZkaYuz6c51DP1unIPJU03yfnsCLGsOGVUq8bXgC3MemaHlO0h+MyxGU9fr/Y V36T+QmLuDpyEp2APtfSfgwnPJ6FB2N/098yCelQ=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:52:55 -0700
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:53:59 -0000

Hi Peter,
At 14:57 12-04-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>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:

The descriptions from RFC 2026 are no longer applicable.  If you 
decide to argue about this on process grounds, you are correct and I am wrong.

RFC 5471 defines the boilerplate text for an RFC in the IETF Stream 
which represents consensus.  As this is the IETF, rumor has it that 
there might be a Standard Track document which does not represent 
IETF Consensus.

   "Registrations published in non-IETF RFC streams are allowed and
    require IESG approval."

Documents in the IETF Stream also require IESG approval.  The hurdle 
is lower for non-IETF streams.   I don't have enough background 
information to comment on whether that should be changed.