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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> Hi Ned,

> To be clear, if we want to register the three new types as
> application/EmergencyCallData.*+xml we need option (3), which would
> establish the EmergencyCallData tree as an IETF tree? 

Yes, that's correct, although I can't speak to whether or not you'd 
want the tree restricted to the IETF.

> We would need
> to indicate if it is possible to have vendor, private, and vanity
> facets under this, and indicate the rules for registered
> standards-related uses?  Or am I not understanding the option?

No, that's not what's needed. What you need to do is specify essentially what
the tree is for, who gets to use it, and so on. The same way that RFC 6838
specifies what the trees it defines are for and who gets to use them.

I know very little about these types generally, but given the name
I'm guessing that the rules associated with personal tree would not
be appropriate... Some variation of the rules associated with the standards
(unfaceted) tree would seem to make sense, but as I note above, you
need to decide who gets to use the tree, and the rule for the existing
standards tree (standards organizations recognized as such by the IESG)
may or may not be what you want.

				Ned