[media-types] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-05: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-05: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-05

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Harald Alvestrand for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended
status.

Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer, please
consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03-intdir-lc-fressancourt-2023-09-05/
(and I have read a start of the discussion)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

Probably due to my ignorance on the topic, but in `the right of the slash with
a prefix of '.../vnd.` can there be a '/' in the '...' ?

## Section 1.1

Section 1 was about `top-level media types` and now this section is about
`top-level types`, they are probably the same concept, but may I suggest
introducing the shorthand equivalent ?

I am afraid that I cannot identify the scenarii in `In some older scenarios,`

## Section 2.1

I would expect a BCP document to clearly (punt intended) specify how `clearly`
is evaluated in this section. E.g., is IETF consensus on the clarity enough ?
See also Lars Eggert's ballot.

Unsure about the usefulness of `Please note that the 'example' top-level
describes a subtype 'example'.`

## Section 2.2

`Existing wide use of an undefined top-level type` what is an "undefined
top-level type" ? One that is not IANA registered ? Please be explicit.

## Section 2.3

Please expand `RDF`.

## Section 3

An interesting read but suggest moving this section in the introduction or in
the appendix.