Re: [media-types] WG: Still need an editor....

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Martin, I would be happy with having a draft that says what you say 
below ("New top level types are rare enough and different enough that 
each application needs to be evaluated separately").

The draft probably needs to say that the document specifying the new top 
level type has to be a standards-track RFC approved by the IESG, I think 
that's no change from previous practice.

If there are other considerations that we agree upon after discussion, 
we can add them. But a draft shouldn't need to be much more than one 
page of real content (+ the usual 4 pages of boilerplate).

Would you be willing to author such a draft?

Harald

On 2/15/22 01:21, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> [see below]
>
> On 2022-02-15 08:40, Yeshwant Muthusamy wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Since Harald's last message calling for volunteer editors for the 
>> "process for creating a new top level type", the silence has been 
>> quite deafening. Is it a lack of interest or bandwidth or both?
>>
>>
>>
>> A review of the mediaman charter 
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mediaman/about/) reveals a 
>> dependency relationship between the first two items on the charter, 
>> but it is not to the point where Item #2 is killed off if no progress 
>> is made on Item #1 (at least that's the way I understand it from the 
>> wording):
>>
>>    1.  Determine whether any specific criteria or guidance are 
>> warranted to handle registration of future top-level media types, and 
>> publish any such guidance.
>>    2.  Develop and process the pending 'haptics' top-level media type 
>> request, based on draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics, and the outcome 
>> of the previous work item.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are members OK with proceeding with Item #2 and punting on Item #1 
>> until a later point in time? After all, 'font' went through the 
>> process just fine (and was approved as an RFC) without Item #1.
>
> I for one would be happy with this. I think the main guidance I have 
> so far distilled from the haptics draft is "don't go out and assume 
> new top level types will be approved just because you start using 
> them". But sadly, writing that up probably won't help.
>
> Other than that, I agree that registrations for top-level types are so 
> sparse (and should continue to be sparse) and each one comes with its 
> own considerations that it's difficult to write up something that's 
> general enough to hold up for the next instance (if an when that would 
> happen).
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
>
>> Since I have a vested interest in moving Item #2 forward, I am more 
>> than happy to serve as editor for Item #1, with the proviso that IETF 
>> members more well-versed in top-level media type registrations are 
>> willing to contribute to the draft and help me along.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any takers?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Yeshwant
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. | Vice President, Standards
>>
>> [e-mail] | [phone]
>>
>>
>>
>> www.immersion.com
>>
>> 330 Townsend St, Suite 234
>>
>> San Francisco, California 94107
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: media-types <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Harald 
>> Alvestrand
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 4:32 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [media-types] WG: Still need an editor....
>>
>>
>>
>> At the moment, the -haptics draft has been republished as 
>> draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-00.
>>
>>
>>
>> We're still waiting for the -suffixes draft to be republished under 
>> the new name.
>>
>>
>>
>> But more importantly, we're still hoping for someone to volunteer as 
>> editor for the "process for creating a new top level type".
>>
>>
>>
>> Any takers?
>>
>>
>>
>> Harald
>>