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

[Rob Sloan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

> applies no restrictions to the contents of strings

I am happy to add a section to encourage the safe handling of Unicode
strings within a Protobuf encoding and cross-reference to this document.
Your point that special or unassigned code points may cause application
misbehavior is certainly well taken. Note that parse-time UTF-8 format
enforcement on string fields is optional
<https://protobuf.dev/editions/features/#utf8_validation> for backward
compatibility with proto2.

On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 10:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>