From nobody Mon Jun 7 21:31:15 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF7B3A2059 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 21:31:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=NsSvmcIQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=L1awhLYe Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKka5a-ssF_i for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 21:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B75A63A2054 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 21:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4F85C015E; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 00:31:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:31:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=y 8NHqbYhOdGfQmfkGIdrIwqQi9yoMpVuGaPsFoytGxU=; b=NsSvmcIQMcTAlQ77M /lSW/BmDVfXmqmdDB/Gi3M/+TLmkUjBMVEvtrLGXgPJNHRiCuaMoGxMkeH6I1coF ICWaMGtfN/+SKvzLM9O4qp1fWbV1+agZlbR+IMmbO5sVjNobY27QXer4r9pALvX3 M4e9IiM5+746m+p9KGfe2lobqsWgZP/L27f1q93aUROSHrz73QHNognSsGZJJseG KqFqmmYYta4FpaVjvlrGMThquagsF0q8mBK9jOQG6x7e6QEMLvpHl563cbClMZWT Ac0wlQjmfpWiZyiFQlU0WPkwXABKQZI7KVMmBI7dBbJT/JrZK9VxMNl6XbnjR3SE /sayw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=y8NHqbYhOdGfQmfkGIdrIwqQi9yoMpVuGaPsFoytG xU=; b=L1awhLYeAO0Y735nYaC/VsveTgYhScQnWUxwp51eep1XiwkHVVEs3vCtd dWZkPz0HvacqI0AUTlq7DJenNYWy0oJ0GxQ7oeOkztqX3zfFD5zj9scYHvwTYyp2 2bTVOEhJaZlclX7BY6TiXTSZb1D2bG+tEulJY2KJBPnp9cPboe+AUaQ7uQzawF2z v3K9GcOF47KMHV3hOJc9nJdFVMULkdLoRDjA1FCQAS5npE/PCmCzlkL6z1asVb1Z fMFJFtGgbsqRJ5fzO4OQ1vBIhzraU0ES+6cPWfCpGifXQK0OGhX3+Xw+NzOYhyiY M97xQ8smjPwgh95RafXmtj2wxKrdw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedtkedgjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeevffffhfduteevvefhueffieegtdeutdehffeltefffedttdeggeejheeiueet teenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 00:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:30:53 +1000 Cc: Ned Freed , DISPATCH list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <01RYY5BDVHVK0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <5F193852-2CBE-4885-A7E9-14B377DFB5E2@mnot.net> <01RZSLCQGG9Y00IM2V@mauve.mrochek.com> To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposed/draft charter for "mediaman" X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 04:31:13 -0000 On 4 Jun 2021, at 1:21 am, Murray S. Kucherawy = wrote: >=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> At a minimum some justification needs to be given as to why this = approach >> will be an improvement. >>=20 > There were two proponents for adding this to the charter, so I'll let = them pipe up here. The interfaces aren't freeform; if you create an issue, you'll see it = uses a template to fill out. Furthermore, the README of each repo = provides guidance. Stepping back, though, I think the bigger question here is whether the = registry policies are still fit for purpose. Right now, a URI scheme can = be registered provisionally on a FCFS basis, and those schemes are not = syntactically distinguished from permanent schemes. OTOH, media types do = syntactically distinguish standards-track registrations from others, and = places several additional hurdles in the place of those registrations = (which by far are the most desirable). This difference in policies is strikingly odd, and seemingly arbitrary. = It would be good to understand why there is a difference, and whether = it's still justifiable.=20 If the community comes to an understanding that the barriers to = registration are appropriate, the current procedures are likely adequate = (although it'd be good to get feedback from other standards bodies). = However, if they're to be changed, the registration procedure would need = consideration too. With that in mind, I suggest replacing the bullet about GitHub with: * Evaluate the registry policies and procedures in the context of how = media types are currently used, and modify them if necessary. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/