[media-types] text/nfo draft-01 to -02 feedback, was Re: [apps-discuss] Volunteer needed for media type ISE review

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Mon, 05 October 2015 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Original-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9FC1B3C32 for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6] autolearn=no
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 ejQR-eUUV53L for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pechora3.lax.icann.org (pechora3.icann.org [IPv6:2620:0:2d0:201::1:73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC471B3C33 for <media-types@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by pechora3.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t950rFrC009310 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <media-types@iana.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 00:53:35 GMT
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [75.83.2.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A8EF509BD; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:53:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <560A2D96.7080605@seantek.com> <002d01d0faaa$315235c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Message-ID: <5611C9DA.3050302@seantek.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:52:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <002d01d0faaa$315235c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms010606010301030205010808"
X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:14:27 by milter-greylist-4.0 (pechora3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.73]); Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:53:35 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/8sUQ2O-87A6csTQSaFUl_guryAw>
Cc: "media-types@iana.org" <media-types@iana.org>
Subject: [media-types] text/nfo draft-01 to -02 feedback, was Re: [apps-discuss] Volunteer needed for media type ISE review
X-BeenThere: media-types@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IANA mailing list for reviewing Media Type \(MIME Type, Content Type\) registration requests." <media-types.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/media-types>, <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/media-types/>
List-Post: <mailto:media-types@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types>, <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:53:38 -0000

Hello Tom et. al.:

Thank you for the comments. I incorporated most of this feedback without 
issue, except for the final two points (and a clarification about 
security considerations):

On 9/29/2015 4:29 AM, t.petch wrote:
> Sean
>
> I think that you will need more Security Considerations to make this
> acceptable.  Looking at that section for other Media Types, they mostly
> say something about the lack of confidentiality, integrity and so on,
> while this I-D explicitly mentions the ambiguity of some code points
> which to me says 'easy phishing'.

On this--I added more stuff. The only thing I might add in a future 
draft is that if you go with the modern Microsoft code page mapping at 
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/goglobal/cc305156>, then the mapping is in 
fact bijective with Unicode.

> s.3.7  this template corresponds to RFC2978 but I note that IANA has a
> few extra fields.    Doubtless the Expert Reviewer will ask for them if
> needed.

I looked through the IANA registries (note that there are two: the 
"charsets" registry and the "character sets" registry), and I did not 
see the extra fields. Can you point them out?

> 3.5 Better to be explicit that it is the 'Media Types' registry that is
> the intended destination.

I did not modify the IANA Considerations text, not so much because I 
disagree, but because I have at least two other Internet-Drafts:
draft-seantek-windows-image
draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown

in which the same boilerplate directives are stated, without saying 
"...in the Standards tree of the Media Types registry [CITE NEEDED?] 
using the application provided...". If I change this draft, it is only 
fair that I change the other drafts. Note that the text-markdown draft 
is allllmoooosssttt ttthhheerrreee to AUTH48.

So this is a general referendum on the topic. In a published document is 
it necessary to state:
1. "of the Media Types registry"
2. "[CITE]" to the Media Types registry
3. "in the [Standards] tree" (let's face it, it's almost always going to 
be in the Standards tree, otherwise why bother; it's also implicit in 
the registration template)

in the IANA Considerations?

My view is that this statement is sufficient:
IANA is asked to register the media type X/Y using the application 
provided in Section Z of this document.

Less is more.

Sean