Re: [dispatch] Proposed/draft charter for "mediaman"

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Revised based on feedback.  If we're good to go here, I can put it on the
> > next review cycle.
>
> Better, but still some issues. My significant concerns are:
>
> (1) This doesn't prioritize the haptics work. (But if it's the consensus
> is not
>     to do that so be it.)
>

It's the first thing on the list.  I can't move it up any higher.

Would you suggest doing not only that, but explicitly saying nothing else
can be done until this ships?

[...]
> "The IETF" -> "The IANA"?
>

OK.

Based on the degree of urgency I've seen expressed in various comments, I'd
> recommend reordering this to haptics, then suffixes, then sec-cons
> checklist,
> then programming languages, then registry format, and finally github.
>

Upthread you said:

"I think this one is likely to be the most contentious by far, and should
come last."

...hence the current ordering.  I'll change it to this new ordering and see
how we all like it.

While I don't have a problem with doing this if IANA doesn't, and if it
> makes
> things easier for IANA so much the better, I am dubious that this actually
> solves the problems people have with registering media types.
>
> The complaints I've heard about the media type registration process
> concern the
> lack of guidance as to how to fill in the various fields. I took a look at
> the
> two examples, and I don't see how using what appears to be a completely
> free
> form interface will address that.
>
> At a minimum some justification needs to be given as to why this approach
> will be an improvement.
>

There were two proponents for adding this to the charter, so I'll let them
pipe up here.

Shouldn't draft-w3cdidwg-media-types-with-multiple-suffixes also
> be listed here?
>

Sure, I just wasn't aware of its existence.  I'll add it.

>    RFC6838bis to the IESG for approval (BCP) based on the last work item
> >    listed above, if needed.
>
> Nothing in RFC 6838 assumes a particular approach to providing the
> necessary
> information to specify a new media type. If github replaces the existing
> form I
> would hope that the existing form address could be changed to redirect to
> Github, but having it display a note with the new URL is always a
> possibility.
>
> Bottom line: I see no reason why a RFC 6838 bis should be needed here, and
> if it is, I think that indicates a change in scope that will need to be
> evaluated in its own right.
>

I'll remove it as a milestone in the charter.  If it ends up being
appropriate, we can always recharter or at least re-add the milestone.

I've now added this to the datatracker:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mediaman/

-MSK