[dispatch] Re: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf

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

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 3:52 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Agree with Tim.
> [...]
>

I've asked my co-authors to comment on Tim's feedback.


> (1) I can see nothing in the DISPATCH charter, much less its history,
> that allows it to assign a document to itself for processing into an
> RFC.  In this particular case, the Abstract says that the document
> registers media types.   We already have a WG, mediaman, which can
> consider new registration procedures and media types (although the
> latter for specific cases would be marginal given its charter).
> Processing registrations in this fashion by DISPATCH would, in any
> event, be inconsistent with both RFC 6838 and the proposed
> draft-ietf-mediaman-6838bis.  This objection should probably have
> been raised in April on the grounds that Media Type registrations are
> not "simple administrative documents" -- if they were, we would not
> need RFC 6838, much less a WG chartered for the purpose of updating
> it.  Even at this late date, I hope the DISPATCH Chairs will consider
> that issue carefully rather than requiring an appeal.
>

I think that this is exactly the sort of case for which the "simple
administrative documents" wording was added to the charter.  This is simply
an IANA registration action that requires an IETF stream document, and the
ADs weren't up for sponsoring it.  There's no protocol work being developed
here, just the wording for a registration.  It's too small a task to
warrant spinning up a working group.  That charter wording was meant to
catch situations exactly like this.

I'm confused by the claim that this is ripe for handling my MEDIAMAN, which
is tasked with reviewing and updating media type registration procedures,
but is not intended to be a general venue for doing any actual
registrations.  I'm also unclear on how RFC 6838 precludes processing of
registrations in this manner.


> (2) Someone should explain, to the DISPATCH WG and the datatracker,
> the relationship between this document
> (draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf) and the apparently (at least
> substantially) identical draft-intarea-dispatch-mime-protobuf-00.
> My guess is that draft-intarea-dispatch-mime-protobuf-00 replaced
> draft-murray-dispatch-mime-protobuf and was, in turn, replaced by
> this draft, but that is not what the datatracker pages say.
>

That was simply a submission/naming error.  I'd forgotten that it even
happened.  I'll get an AD to update the metadata.

-MSK