Re: [Justfont] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt

Alexey Melnikov <> Wed, 26 October 2016 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C22129650 for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=hJlrgr12; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=rRUz6TIh
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qaBkBcnw7Xm for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8713312956D for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A3220843; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web5 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:25:37 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=FqS5yOKv5Vg9prz 2DAOD5XJxw9o=; b=hJlrgr126Hfo0IOrQPaIVjMlVTeXUkRYSH8fNlzADaPblmI aWnD3jA3vaB4T5Gb4Yzyx2IgyGZeTFAabGIFT5wnGXsKfjHyAG+uA/cmQukOel2H fsv3wVGfZCrBUOoxgl27X23iX15EemZUdxrDEFrygjABeHJFfH6lb3njXerI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=FqS5yOKv5Vg9prz2DAOD5XJxw9o=; b=rRUz6TIhYbhYRThhbYvu +ZWhhKiXcg1fbLLyhJ5Z94deM4sDdBE+jAAPTMeWdG7M2Fyjn0TWIOhRCmKPConr y6FoTizwI+AaruPS2D9s1mGuVzjqTI4VhVf/mtK3uiLrA3nOwfDGUAmtKV3L6zfo qzQJLf3/1O9z3weJRKPHv+c=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:8MoQWBh8pPzvbBMNXShYNt6h2QWUqqu9hTUQ7ModJNdH21HL5H2gNw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id C25CB96AEA; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:25:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Sasl-Enc: NIsszSYhxUV8uMrFFIXuh1Qa+M/yeID/KdX20MxKx5zc 1477495536
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
To: Chris Lilley <>,
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_147749553610674700"; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface - ajax-996895c6
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:25:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Justfont] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Font Top Level Media Type \(just font\) WG" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:25:40 -0000

Hi Chris,

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016, at 03:42 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:

> *Where are @font-face format identifiers defined?*
>  This is substantive. To-date, the authoritative definition has been
>  the CSS 3 Fonts specification (and before that, the CSS 2.0
>  specification). Thus my initial thought was that this should
>  continue. Martin asked whether new registrations should give that
>  info too, and I agree that they should. I
>  In that case, IANA would check for uniqueness (as they already do for
>  subtype names) and the authoritative definition would be the
>  registration itself (including the registrations included in the
>  present document) and CSS 3 Fonts would update to state that the
>  registrations are the official source, once the RFC was published.
>  It still seems useful to have a list of @font-face formats, so they
>  would stay in CSS 3 Fonts as an informative list. The W3C errata
>  mechanism could be used in the event of new registrations after CSS 3
>  Fonts becomes a W3C Recommendation.

Using errata for registration sounds a bit of a hack. Although I don't
have a particular opinion on the issue.

>  I recalled seeing a registration template in earlier MIME
>  specifications and went looking for it. I had planned to copy it into
>  the present document, adding the @font-face format field. However,
>  reading through RFC 6838 it seems that this has been replaced by an
>  online form:
You can still send them in email, although IANA prefers for people to
use web forms, as I believe the form does some input validation.

> I have added this as an informative reference in the IANA
> considerations section. I have started to add a section on 'New
> Registrations' which points to this form, and also references the ABNF
> of section *4.2. Naming Requirements* of RFC 6838[1]. Should this
> document then state that it updates RFC 6838?

> How should we go about getting the online form updated to include
> the @font-face format to the "additional information" section of
> that form?
Email me with details and I sort this out with IANA.

> Also, is that form the sole way to do new registrations or is there
> still a textual template somewhere which people can edit as a plain
> text email for ietf-types as was done previously?
>  (Off topic, but it would also be good to know who to contact about
>  updates to the form because it has a link to RFC 3013, which was
>  obsoleted by RFC 7303; this should be corrected).

I will take care of this.