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

Ted Hardie <> Wed, 09 March 2011 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329AC3A67EA for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:33:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.531
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47GhK-7TsbKQ for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:32:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C0C3A67E6 for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:32:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwh6 with SMTP id 6so42654qwh.31 for <>; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:34:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gE9QtEunX08OMZb1aQEZtTYFO/IF4OG2Mlkeat6HmzE=; b=QExL0P5biTRXVFbmdeM+HIaWagN/juT6FzqZ76TQPKp94LKgVQKl+ZkTlZy38BI6AL WPa/kNuMTRcHkTgCxppEir5KEA6efQomFunV8hzT+9k5nPlVxKphU88YZyAzahIVHAjT QDGI7oWGWTajR4OrzFbzJNJ2BlHE0VXKYbyFs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HvpDTJ/as3pgN015fqeFTVI1MlYD7aiCOfkk2iM4YEgieXrKACKDh0BGz6RCmENeJ0 rQ92VF7nR2p7enQKGfU4netF91MoBOdyCNQJEFvGd5KcQ680HJz6hK8lOvB/N1EFkwUx GJ/FfPA5MfBMlASURcLUoQZnuQ8xTQlwnP20A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id n6mr3468903qce.252.1299634453078; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:34:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:34:13 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: SM <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 01:33:00 -0000

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM, SM <> wrote:
> Hi Alexey,

>> BCP 13 (currently RFC 4288) specifies that Media Type registrations
>> from other Standards Organizations (SDOs) can be submitted directly to
>> IESG for approval, without a need to submit an Internet Draft and to ask
>> an Area Director to shepherd its publication.
>> While this IESG statement doesn't change that, IESG would like to
>> encourage other SDOs to submit their registriation as Internet Drafts,
>> as this tends to improve quality of final registrations, and sometimes
>> even improves quality of the underlying format itself.

>  "The media type registration procedure is not a formal standards
>   process, but rather an administrative procedure intended to allow
>   community comment and sanity checking without excessive time delay."
> The proposed IESG statement will end up turning "the posting of an Internet
> Draft [into] a necessary first step".  Martin Dürst mentioned that it is not
> always easy for people outside the IETF to write an I-D [1].  "The IESG's
> workflow is probably optimized for Internet-Drafts, so it's easy to see how
> this might improve things for the IESG, with requests ending up in the right
> tracking systems" [2].  This has the makings of turning the registration
> procedure into a formal standards process.

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.
 The BCP will say "not needed" and the IESG statement will say
"encouraged".  I'd say if the IESG ever plans to point to the
statement after receiving one in another format, it should update the
BCP instead.


Ted Hardie