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

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Thu, 10 March 2011 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093CC3A6B1F for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hcl04TjLoV5u for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D4AB3A6B1D for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:54:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2011 00:55:37 -0000
Received: from (EHLO HIVE) [] by (mp054) with SMTP; 10 Mar 2011 01:55:37 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX195AUR1vHl5hZg4NjZqQExGC4Quaw2ZAyEhD4eYZq B39zEzcxEw/1ya
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 01:55:35 +0100
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:19:23 -0800
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:54:24 -0000

* Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>[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.)

I am not sure whether RFC 4288 has failed in this respect generally, but
it seems pretty clear that the W3C has been largely unable to follow the
much simpler process here. If you look at the not-very-well-maintained
index at you have
entries there like "Check in November 2009" under "Plans". It's not a
total failure, but W3C staff obviously can't do so much as check, say, a
review request to ietf-types goes out along with a Last Call or that the
types have actually been registered when a document is to move to CR, PR
REC, "Second Edition" levels.

Putting this around, a bit of a summary of the problems the IESG has en-
countered with registration requests from other standards organizations
that don't come as I-Ds would help in making suggestions.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·