[media-types] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document!

I support Paul Wouters’ DISCUSS. Generally, the IANA Considerations section is
a little less comprehensive than I’m used to seeing, but I guess the sponsoring
AD and IANA will be able to work with the authors if they think changes are
needed.

Also, to elaborate on one of Paul’s points, it seems to me all the SHOULD in
“The registration and actual use of a certain number of subtypes under the new
top-level type SHOULD be expected. At a minimum, one actual subtype SHOULD
exist. But the existence of a single subtype SHOULD not be enough; it SHOULD be
clear that new similar types may appear in the future. Otherwise, the creation
of a new top-level type is most probably not justified” are misplaced. They
SHOULD be “should”.

Finally, a nit: In Section 3, you don’t want “shortly describes” but “briefly
describes”.