Re: [Cellar] Second AD review of draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-10

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-07-03 9:44 a.m., Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I think you need to be clearer on what you expect to appear on IANA's page. Do you expect a reference and/or description field in addition to a DocType name? I suspect you would also need the Change Controller field (who registered the value and can update the description).
> 
>     DocType string values of "matroska" and "webm" are RESERVED to the
>     IETF for future use.  These can be assigned via the "IESG Approval"
>     or "RFC Required" policies [RFC8126].
> 
> The last sentence is odd, but then I realized that you only reserve these two names and will attempt to assign them separately in the future. I suppose the current text is Ok.
> 

Hi, we struggled with how we should initialize the DocType registry, 
since we expect "matroska" to be used by draft-ietf-cellar-matroska, and 
we expect "webm" to only be given to some new work (from google) that 
would define that format.

A decision as to who is the legitimate documentator of the (existing) 
"webm" DocType would be up to the IESG.

This text was suggested by IANA!