Re: [media-types] Review request for application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD+per

["Rosen, Brian" <[e-mail]>]

Just so I’m clear on option 1 when you say “Future types” do you mean
future types that are “application.EmergencyCallData.*+xml” types, or
other types that use a period in the same way we’re using it for
EmergencyCallData?

Brian

On 9/28/16, 2:49 AM, "Ned Freed" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Hi Ned and Mark,
>
>> Thanks for the replies.
>
>> Does one of the drafts need to say that it updates Appendix A of RFC
>> 6838 to permit "EmergencyCallData." as a media subtype prefix,
>> reserved for data sent during an emergency call?  Or add a statement
>> without updating RFC 6838?  Or would IESG approval of the drafts be
>> sufficient?
>
>I'm a little unclear about what you're proposing here, so let me just
>outine
>your options:
>
>(1) You can keep using the existing names
>application/EmergencyCallData.*+xml
>    as exceptions per Appendix A of RFC 6838. Future types won't be able
>to
>    use this syntax, however.
>
>(2) You can rename these types to something that doesn't have facet
>syntax and
>    retain the old names as aliases. Future types will need to use the new
>    syntax.
>
>(3) You can write a document that specifies the EmergencyCallData
>registration
>    tree per section 3.5 of RFC 6838? A standards action is needed to do
>this,
>    and the document will need to cover all the points that RFC 6838
>covers
>    for the standards, vendor, personal/vantity, and unregistered trees.
>
>				Ned
>