Re: [dispatch] Proposal to add 'haptics' as a new top-level media type - Comments welcome [Was RE: draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics-00.txt]

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 26/10/2020 23:46, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Yeshwant Muthusamy <[e-mail]> writes:

>>> [[YKM]] I am not sure what you mean by 'draft IANA registrations'. The
>>> IANA registration website does not have a provision to specify a new
>>> top-level media type. You have to choose from a fixed drop-down list
>>> of currently approved top-level types in order to register a new
>>> subtype. Given that 'haptics' is not part of the top-level media type
>>> list yet, I do not see how I can proceed with a 'draft' registration
>>> for any of the subtypes of interest. Am I missing something?
> 
>> You understand that you need to write a draft RFC to create the
>> top-level type, and to get it accepted.  One thing that helps get any
>> draft RFC accepted is to provide examples of the thing you are
>> proposing.  In the case of a top-level media type, having the RFC
>> include registrations of a number of subtypes is useful, because it
>> shows people that there is practical benefit to be gained immediately,
>> and also to show them what these subtype registrations look like.
>> Ideally, these proposed registrations will point to enough information
>> to enable the reader to implement the encoding.
> 
> Exactly right.

Yes. For a very good example, please look at RFC 8081, which registers 6 
subtypes. In addition to the arguments Ned gave above, including 
non-controversial subtypes in the same document not only shows people 
that there is practical benefit to be gained immediately, the practical 
benefit will actually be gained immediately when the document is accepted.

As an aside, I think delegating the registration of subtypes in a 
certain top-level type to some other standards organization (as alluded 
to by John Klensin) is a bad idea because it would create confusion and 
additional overhead. To have some people familiar with haptics on the 
[e-mail] mailing list in case specific expertise is needed 
would be better.

Regards,   Martin.