Re: [media-types] WG Last call comments on draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-03

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Stephan,

The haptics draft is referenced in my document as informational because 
it's just one of many toplevel types, and it *informed* the conditions 
and wording in the toplevel draft. On the other hand, the haptics draft 
is being approved according to the guidelines in the toplevel draft that 
we developed in parallel, so a normative reference makes sense (I think 
Harald's comments also point in this direction).

I understand your concern that procedural RFCs can get delayed, but I'm 
rather optimistic in this respect about toplevel. One reason is that I'm 
the author, so optimism helps :-). The other reason is that for many 
other procedural drafts, there are discussions about document 
requirements, expert approval, and so on, where different people often 
have different opinions, even if they may be just shades away. In the 
toplevel case, it seems (at least so far) that people agree that it's a 
fairly rare event that therefore has fairly high requirements.

But if it turns out that toplevel gets delayed, I think we can always 
look at how we might solve that problem (e.g. downreference or whatever).

Regards,   Martin.

On 2023-07-22 05:43, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> Lots of excellent comments.  A question inline
> Thanks,
> Stephan
> 
> From: media-types <[e-mail]> on behalf of Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, July 21, 2023 at 11:56
> To: IETF mediaman WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [media-types] WG Last call comments on draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-03
> [cut]
> 
> "This document defines a new top-level type 'haptics' according to
> Section 4.2.7 of [RFC6838].": What actually happened was that we were
> developing new process (in draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel) and trying that
> process out with the -haptics draft. If it wouldn't be for the -haptics
> draft, we wouldn't have worked on the -toplevel draft. So it should say
> "This document defines a new top-level type 'haptics' according to
> draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel." For first-time draft/RFC authors, that
> may look strange, but the RFC editor will make sure that the reference
> to draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel gets replaced with a reference to the
> resulting RFC. Publishing two or more RFCs at a time is part of their
> job, they do that quite often. If you want to help them, you can look at
> how I referenced the -haptics draft in the -toplevel draft, with RFC XXXX.
> 
> I believe the haptics I-D is referenced in your toplevel I-D as informative, hence non-blocking from an RFC-editor publication viewpoint.  If your suggestion is to reference the toplevel-I-D also informatively in the haptics I-D, I have no concerns.  If you are shooting for a normative reference, however, I would push back a bit.  The reason is purely pragmatic: procedural RFCs like the toplevel I-D can often see many years of delay from procedure-oriented discussions, whereas a technical solution I-D like the I-D in question can move faster.  I would rather want to decouple the two to the extent possible.  Please clarify whether you shoot for an informative or normative reference in the subject draft.
> 
> [cut]
>