Re: [arcmedia] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-arcmedia-00-00: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 14 January 2015 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: arcmedia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: arcmedia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15821A8832; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:31:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jt9E8U8Rc20m; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D14F1A1AAE; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:31:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id gm9so5865523lab.12; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:31:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FMjA6Plb8t+sdSBaQuaTeXyZEj1cm3lmZPvDLqAxZfg=; b=Iwh1wHfAlnYKAVI6D2/mCm6pmz7y6U8r1PI7MZJ9GHAjf+osoyElvy749uLY7UcVvn cAcgqO1H+VUqHkk6DeM4YdZrmfUMj4xa4yx+WZIRXIUree4NkMODPEFcm7C8lYK91gIa rnsbK4jL+Z4+z7YcVIdHl6iwsTuWA7d8cfxtDp4y4dpoHO6ngtesdxViThSjz46UX+rp Hno6iRlzB2kmKzVmMguwtfrcJ1ZDchEznpaR7aJwgJMt6Rdx0JQth1TpSot1VjhVD7Uc 2kTdG8rQ+V6iJxd4M+XIvNgGucUXHXVnxOhlHg2PsPWSXZJKEvgORt6RPmoUX5359b+V Z+QA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.162.4 with SMTP id xw4mr1286237lbb.89.1421202669104; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.185.195 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.185.195 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:31:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJnT-3J13RjyQ+e-zkXFQhMO3GEdrT=cN+xjv3O8uNH-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150113224130.4724.29830.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJJnT-3J13RjyQ+e-zkXFQhMO3GEdrT=cN+xjv3O8uNH-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:31:08 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dfKZTwo90VV4GrZmLOVWOqMamRufigcchWhyNrip1u_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011779033ef46a050c938867
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/arcmedia/pKOs-BCy6gaRKuIK8vINIioZ7f8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:09:25 -0800
Cc: arcmedia@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [arcmedia] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-arcmedia-00-00: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: arcmedia@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of creating a new top-level media type, \"archive\", for archive bundles." <arcmedia.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/arcmedia>, <mailto:arcmedia-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/arcmedia/>
List-Post: <mailto:arcmedia@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:arcmedia-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/arcmedia>, <mailto:arcmedia-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:31:13 -0000

On Jan 13, 2015 6:46 PM, "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>; wrote:
>
> > We create top-level media types only rarely, only with Standards Track
> > RFCs,
> > and only when one or more media types get special (or common, in the
> > case
> > of more than one) handling that does not fit under an existing top-level
> > media type.  RFC6838 defines this process.
> >
> > << I found myself wondering if archive met these criteria. I guess it
> > does, and I guess that the RFC6838 process will be used, but I'm just
> > guessing both of those. If the charter said that more plainly, I'd
wonder
> > less. >>
>
> Hm.  Of course, we wouldn't be doing this if we thought it didn't meet
> those criteria.  But see below.
>
> > In these two paragraphs:
> >
> > The working group will use draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type as its
> > initial input.  It will specify rules for registering subtypes under
> > that
> > new top-level type, considering at a minimum the issue of type suffixes,
> > fragment identifiers, and internationalization.  The W3C TAG work on
> > packaging and archives, currently in progress, will also be considered.
> >
> > Either in that same document or in one of more follow-on documents, it
> > will
> > produce an initial set of registrations under the new top-level media
> > type.
> >
> > << I'm guessing "that same document" is
> > draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type, but "The W3C TAG work on packaging
> > and archives" is the closest possibility. Maybe this could be clearer?
> >>>
>
> I've addressed both of the above comments with a change in the
> paragraph that mentions the "seantek" draft.  See if you think it's
> all clear now.

Yes, and thank you!