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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:38 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> ## 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 '...' ?
>

No; this is constrained back in RFC 2045 which is still basically the
defining document for media types.


> ## 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 didn't even notice that this got dropped.  Anyone familiar with the
space won't miss the word, but it might be helpful to include unless
there's a reason to omit it.  Harald, was this intentional?


> ## 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.
>

I suggest that the nature of the clarity requirement is implied since the
requirement for registration is "Standards Action".

## 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.
>

Yes, that's the intent.


> ## Section 2.3
>
> Please expand `RDF`.
>

+1

## Section 3
>
> An interesting read but suggest moving this section in the introduction or
> in
> the appendix.
>

A reasonable suggestion.  I defer to the WG.

-MSK