[media-types] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for working on this specification. I think the additional considerations
will be useful.

In my review I have no TSV related issues (obviously :-) ). However, I think
the IANA consideration section should say the registry policy is "RFC required"
with "standard track" specification and point to
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-4.7). Even though it puts
a requirement saying - "Every new top-level type MUST be defined in a Standards
Track RFC", I don't think it hurts repeating it in IANA consideration.