Re: [media-types] [MEDIAMAN] Last Call response (NO) on draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Sun, 23 July 2023 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4029C14CEFE for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xmrn8Wqb34m1 for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.alvestrand.no (smtp.alvestrand.no [65.21.189.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3F9DC14F73E for <media-types@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.130.172] (dhcp-82ac.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.130.172]) by smtp.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7CCA4CDF5; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 19:23:47 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8B1Vf1ubvylD9ssFwTQ7agLf"
Message-ID: <be2a4cfa-e078-a1bc-901f-fa0c7d4a144f@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:23:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Yeshwant Muthusamy <ymuthusamy@immersion.com>, "media-types@ietf.org" <media-types@ietf.org>
Cc: "yeshwant@yeshvik.com" <yeshwant@yeshvik.com>
References: <777643ac-4960-264a-7dd0-4e9e731b7626@alvestrand.no> <SN4PR16MB4879B982D449335AA3659675DE38A@SN4PR16MB4879.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <f878c99a-39ce-39b2-aa4e-fd4306805b93@alvestrand.no> <SN4PR16MB487938946FAA4FC6C6C44587DE3FA@SN4PR16MB4879.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <SN4PR16MB487938946FAA4FC6C6C44587DE3FA@SN4PR16MB4879.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/gnAr7T6IxfrrR-ygmdsxgUNHLfw>
Subject: Re: [media-types] [MEDIAMAN] Last Call response (NO) on draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics
X-BeenThere: media-types@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 17:23:56 -0000

On 7/21/23 20:45, Yeshwant Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Hi Harald,
>
> Regarding your comment:
>
> >>- Section 4 does not ask IANA to register "haptics" in the top level 
> registry (this is a side effect of referencing 6838).
>
> It is not clear to me what my action here is; clearly I am missing 
> something. Please bear with me.
>
> This is what "Section 4. IANA Considerations" currently says:
>
> This specification registers a new top-level type, 'haptics', in the
>
> standards tree, adds it as an alternative value of "Type Name" in the
>
> media types registration form [Media-Type-Registration], and
>
> registers several subtypes for it.
>
> What changes, if any, do I need to make to this prose? Or, were you 
> suggesting that I add prose elsewhere in Section 4?
>
New prose:

This specification registers a new top level type, "haptics", and 
requests IANA to add it to the registry of top level types specified in 
[toplevel], adds it ....

(Top level types are not subject to the standards tree / vendor tree 
distinction, so "in the standards tree" is not applicable.)


> Please clarify.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yeshwant
>
> Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. | Consulting CTO
>
> ymuthusamy@immersion.com | +1 469-583-2171
>
> www.immersion.com
>
> 2999 N. E. 191st Street, Suite 610
>
> Aventura, FL  33180
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 4:58 PM
> To: Yeshwant Muthusamy <ymuthusamy@immersion.com>; media-types@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [media-types] [MEDIAMAN] Last Call response (NO) on 
> draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics
>
> On 7/18/23 18:33, Yeshwant Muthusamy wrote:
>
> > Hi Harald,
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for the valuable feedback.
>
> >
>
> > Regarding IVS, the specification has been divulged to MPEG and is 
> effectively part of the ISO/IEC 23090-31 Haptic Coding standard (that 
> is currently in DIS ballot and is expected to progress to FDIS - Final 
> Draft International Standard at the October 2023 MPEG meeting). So 
> making ISO the change controller for IVS is not an issue. Can make 
> that change in v04 of the haptics I-D.
>
> >
>
> > Regarding HAPT, the specification has not been published anywhere 
> and even if it were, having a vendor specification in a Standards 
> Track RFC seems strange. Therefore, I would like to replace HAPT with 
> either or both HMPG and HJIF - which are two haptic subtypes that are 
> part of ISO/IEC 23090-31 DIS standard referenced above. HMPG is a 
> binary streaming haptic format and HJIF is a JSON human-readable 
> equivalent of HMPG.  When the haptics I-D draft was first published, 
> these two subtypes were nothing more than a glint in my eye, hence 
> could not include them. Now they are more mature and fleshed out and 
> about to be part of an ISO standard, hence the change. Would this 
> change satisfy your concern? I ask before taking the time to add these 
> two subtype registrations to v04. The change controller for these new 
> subtypes will be ISO.
>
> Yes, that will satisfy my concern.
>
> >
>
> > Regarding referencing the TOPLEVEL procedure (that is currently 
> under discussion in MEDIAMAN), what would the actual reference prose 
> look like? Do I need to wait until it gets approved and gets a new RFC 
> number, or do I just reference the latest toplevel I-D?
>
> Just reference the toplevel I-D where you would otherwise use the RFC 
> number. The RFC Editor will take care of replacing it. Remember to 
> list it under normative references - if your doc reaches the RFC 
> Editor before the -toplevel doc, the RFC Editor will hold it until the 
> RFC number is available, and then substitute.
>
> >
>
> > I am fine with making the other non-substantive changes that you 
> have raised.
>
> >
>
> > Would appreciate responses to my questions above at your earliest 
> convenience so that I can get v04 ready in time for IETF 117.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Yeshwant
>
> >
>
> > Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. | Consulting CTO ymuthusamy@immersion.com 
> <mailto:ymuthusamy@immersion.com> |
>
> > +1 469-583-2171
>
> >
>
> > 
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flink 
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flink>
>
> > protect.cudasvc.com%2Furl%3Fa%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.immersion.com%2
>
> > 52f%26c%3DE%2C1%2CpBB4OqudvUJxQh1i2yMofC426_dEm1JBMkH-lLXwxovpMpRV-2DQ
>
> > g3ms4g8a0u41ECN3MVd0xWw_HaFaTfrJOei6fc8pw2GKaKzNpLZKRPSBngvK%26typo%3D
>
> > 1&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccb3ed89b7215448efc4008db87da1a1f%7C4f05e41a59b8413
>
> > aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7C0%7C638253143094940215%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
>
> > 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C
>
> > 3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zb20%2Fg2BIb2OBKJiAQqSqjcwcyzeHIVFCM1NePYQ4Z0%3D&r
>
> > eserved=0
>
> > 2999 N. E. 191st Street, Suite 610
>
> > Aventura, FL  33180
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: media-types <media-types-bounces@ietf.org 
> <mailto:media-types-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Harald
>
> > Alvestrand
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 8:58 AM
>
> > To: media-types@ietf.org <mailto:media-types@ietf.org>
>
> > Subject: [media-types] [MEDIAMAN] Last Call response (NO) on
>
> > draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics
>
> >
>
> > Apologies for the lateness of this response.
>
> >
>
> > I have read draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics -03, and I think it is NOT 
> ready for publication as an RFC (or IETF Last Call).
>
> >
>
> > Two substantive issues:
>
> >
>
> > 
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith 
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith>
>
> > ub.com%2Fietf-wg-mediaman%2Fhaptics%2Fissues%2F4&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccb3
>
> > ed89b7215448efc4008db87da1a1f%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7
>
> > C0%7C638253143094940215%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC
>
> > JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qkQ
>
> > J%2FzG79J%2BbNNoQ4hz7L6xlqUQsq5qXyc1gjR839UM%3D&reserved=0 - HAPT type
>
> > definition needs more work (specification, name and change controller)
>
> >
>
> > 
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith 
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith>
>
> > ub.com%2Fietf-wg-mediaman%2Fhaptics%2Fissues%2F3&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccb3
>
> > ed89b7215448efc4008db87da1a1f%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7
>
> > C0%7C638253143094940215%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC
>
> > JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=C3L
>
> > uzg56%2B9h75Z4NmQKHinZVwZdv1qgyu%2FqyqvQ4UaI%3D&reserved=0 - IVS type
>
> > definition needs more work (specification and change controller)
>
> >
>
> > Once these are cleared up, I think the document is ready.
>
> >
>
> > Non-substantive issues that should also be cleared up while 
> addressing the above:
>
> >
>
> > - Section 1 claims to register the subtype according to RFC 6838; it
>
> > should be referencing [TOPLEVEL]
>
> > 
> (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit 
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit>
>
> > hub.com%2Fietf-wg-mediaman%2Fhaptics%2Fissues%2F5&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccb
>
> > 3ed89b7215448efc4008db87da1a1f%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%
>
> > 7C0%7C638253143094940215%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL
>
> > CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eR
>
> > PtIrQ1cDRyPGG4EB9gRh8u%2BbyVFAg10A%2FP9Qf1iZU%3D&reserved=0)
>
> > - In section 3, the sentence starting "Ultimately, any coded 
> representation..." adds no value and should be deleted.
>
> > - Section 4 does not ask IANA to register "haptics" in the top level 
> registry (this is a side effect of referencing 6838).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > media-types mailing list
>
> > media-types@ietf.org <mailto:media-types@ietf.org>
>
> > 
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flink 
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flink>
>
> > protect.cudasvc.com%2Furl%3Fa%3Dhttps%253a%252f%252fwww.ietf.org%252fm
>
> > ailman%252flistinfo%252fmedia-types%26c%3DE%2C1%2CLN4qkZGWCsxkGqz1WSxo
>
> > bdWAwHNM65qPbAo0be74UPgooX7C6mHsndFw0nGvNWk3V1U1u5UWgj9kt5OQzBl0PmHfpb
>
> > jEXob8sqCdM0Vb_Wv_MD_nX7Wus2Yex_Y%2C%26typo%3D1&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccb3e
>
> > d89b7215448efc4008db87da1a1f%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7C
>
> > 0%7C638253143094940215%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ
>
> > QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YvsP
>
> > pKNnaqs%2B7HZh1FPcTcDge8TGfUSsBJ1JAbG0nTw%3D&reserved=0
>