Fwd: Update: experiences with SOAP media type registration

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

I've been asked to forward this to the IETF main list FYI.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>
> Date: November 2, 2003 5:44:28 PM PST
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Update: experiences with SOAP media type registration
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
> Since sending the message below, the IESG considered and rejected the  
> registration of the application/soap+xml media type, apparently  
> because the draft did not actually contain its registration (instead,  
> it referenced the registration in the SOAP specifications), and  
> because it referenced works in progress (e.g., the SOAP 1.2  
> specifications, which were not REC at the time).
>
> Unfortunately, the IESG did not notify the authors of the  
> Internet-Draft of the decision made by e-mail; Ned Freed has said that  
> the rejection was communicated to people "on the W3C concalls," but  
> this information didn't filter down to the WG. (If anyone has  
> information about this, please contact me; we still need to resolve  
> the registration of application/soap+xml).
>
> A note was placed in the IESG's Web datatracker[1], but this was a  
> comment from another IESG member about the shortcomings of the Draft,  
> not an actual decision regarding the status of the Draft, which was  
> only updated after Ned discovered the omission and changed the  
> document's status. No e-mail notification of any of this (except as  
> below) has been received by the Draft's authors.
>
> I (and therefore the WG) only found out about this because of e-mail  
> discussion following from comments I made to regarding  
> draft-freed-mime-p4-04; if I had not made those comments, I'm  
> reasonably certain we still wouldn't know the status of the I-D.
>
> I'd also note that the IESG appears to administer its responsibilities  
> in a more informal fashion than the W3C does (e.g., the Draft wasn't  
> added to the datatracker until September 11, e-mailing the authors of  
> a Draft about its status isn't seen as necessary, and it's thought  
> adequate notification of a problem when an IESG member comments  
> without changing a Draft's status). As a result, it may be necessary  
> to be in more constant contact with the IESG to ascertain the status  
> of a particular Draft.
>
> My recommendation to future W3C WGs that need to register media types  
> would be to co-ordinate with the W3C liaison to get a periodic update  
> of their Drafts' status from the IESG (anecdotal evidence shows that  
> individual queries to members of the IESG are often not responded to).
>
>
> 1.   
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
> command=view_id&dTag=8198&rfc_flag=0
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2003, at 2:32 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> [ note that followups are set to public-ietf-w3c only]
>>
>> The XML Protocol Working Group, as part of its work, needs to  
>> register the "application/soap+xml" media type with IANA. Although  
>> this task has been shared by many people, I've been responsible for  
>> driving the actual registration over the last few months. This note  
>> documents my experiences with the registration process, as directed  
>> by an action item given to me by the XML Protocol WG on 03 Sep 2003.
>>
>> Our approach to registration was informed by a number of sources:
>>   1) WG members' previous experiences with media type registration  
>> (myself, Mark Baker, Yves Lafon)
>>   2) RFC2048, Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:  
>> Registration Procedures
>>   3) W3C guidelines (although we were not immediately aware of these)
>>   4) Feedback from the IESG (or individuals comprising it or acting  
>> on its behalf) and RFC Editor.
>>
>> Previous experiences were mixed; at times, the RFC Editor and/or IESG  
>> appear to have operated under different procedures. Based on them, we  
>> initially requested that the RFC Editor publish the I-D as an  
>> Informational RFC, believing that any necessary clearance by the IESG  
>> would be gained in due course. This proved not to be the case (see  
>> timeline).
>>
>> RFC2048 is ambiguous from a process standpoint, regarding  
>> registration of IETF-tree media types; it says;
>>
>> [[[
>> 2.3.  Registration Procedure
>>    [...]
>>    For registration in the IETF tree, the normal IETF processes should
>>    be followed, treating posting of an internet-draft and announcement
>>    on the ietf-types list (as described in the next subsection) as a
>>    first step.
>>   [...]
>> 2.3.2.  IESG Approval
>>
>>    Media types registered in the IETF tree must be submitted to the  
>> IESG
>>    for approval.
>>
>> 2.3.3.  IANA Registration
>>
>>    Provided that the media type meets the requirements for media types
>>    and has obtained approval that is necessary, the author may submit
>>    the registration request to the IANA, which will register the media
>>    type and make the media type registration available to the  
>> community.
>> ]]]
>>
>> However, it does not indicate when in relation to RFC publication  
>> IESG approval must be requested, nor does it say how to go about  
>> gaining IESG approval.
>>
>>
>> W3C guidelines <http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype>  
>> don't specify the full process for RFC publication, and advise  
>> pinging the IESG secretary; upon doing so, we encountered problems  
>> (see timeline).
>>
>>
>> * Timeline
>>   17 Jun 2003 - request for publication as an Internet-Draft sent to  
>> internet-drafts (draft had been previously circulated on ietf-types  
>> list, and changes to -03 were only editorial)
>>   18 Jun 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
>>   09 Jul 2003 - request for publication as an Informational RFC sent  
>> to rfc-editor
>>   10 Jul 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
>>   21 Aug 2003 - rfc-editor feedback stating that IESG approval must  
>> be requested by the author, and that the document's reference of a  
>> W3C specification may not meet the publication requirement (see  
>> attached)
>>   21 Aug 2003 - query sent to RFC Editor and IESG regarding proper  
>> procedure and appropriate use of references to W3C materials (not  
>> acknowledged or answered as of yet)
>>   29 Aug 2003 - request for last call / approval by the IESG sent to  
>> iesg-secretary
>>   29 Aug 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
>>   08 Sep 2003 - Statement from [e-mail] that only an AD can  
>> request a Last Call, and that there are procedural issues regarding  
>> this type of publication.  (see attached)
>>
>> In short, the process for non-WG submitted IETF tree media type  
>> registrations is unclear to both the RFC Editor and the IESG  
>> secretary at this time.
>>
>>
>> <draft-baker-soap-media-reg-03>
>>
>> <Re: [iesg-secretary #13379] Last Call for>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
>> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>