Re: [dispatch] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-13: (with COMMENT)

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

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 1:20 AM Mathias Bynens <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The MUST in Section 2 is kind of peculiar.  Is it a reminder to
>> implementers
>> today that they need to keep an eye out for possible updates in the
>> future?  If
>> so, I think it's unnecessary.  If something else is meant, then I'm quite
>> confused.
>>
>
> It captures the fact that ECMAScript is a living standard that keeps
> evolving, with new versions being published annually. It is possible that a
> new script goal (other than "classic script" and "module") is added in the
> future, and at that point, we might need a new RFC with updated media type
> registrations.
>

I think what you've written here is much more clear language than what's in
the document presently.

When I see a MUST or SHOULD, I'm expecting to see requirements related to
interoperability or security of the protocol itself, or operational
configuration of a component that implements it.  Thus, I don't think this
use of MUST is appropriate.


>
>> This document is registering media subtypes starting with "x-" even
>> though BCP
>> 178 says not to do that.  If the working group intends to do this for
>> historical reasons, I suggest including a sentence explaining that this is
>> being done intentionally, perhaps under Appendix A of RFC 6838.  (See, for
>> example, Section 6 of RFC 8894.)
>>
>
> This is not new content / a new registration, but rather content inherited
> from RFC4329, which our draft iaims to supersede. The draft already
> explains that it updates RFC4329. Is that sufficient?
>

What I've observed is that the current media type registry does not at
present contain any of the "x-" media types this document is registering.
I believe that makes them new registrations, and so I suggest that there
should be text explaining why BCP 178 doesn't apply here.

-MSK