Re: [media-types] image/svg+xml+gzip

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,
At 11:36 AM 03-04-2024, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>A situation has been brought to the IESG's attention for assistance, 
>and it falls squarely into the media type suffixes problem space.
>
>The above-named media type has been referenced in RFC 9399.  It was, 
>however, never registered, and this document neglected to notice 
>this and include the registration.  So now we basically have a 
>proposed standard squatting on a code point.  Even better, the 
>registration includes multiple suffixes, and we don't know exactly 
>what that means, which is one of the things MEDIAMAN was chartered 
>to specify.  We've been asked to sort this out as the type is 
>apparently starting to get used.

The formats were referenced in a Proposed Standard.  That document 
must have met the bar for IETF Consensus.

>So this adds a dash of urgency to the question we discussed at the 
>mic at 119 and continued discussing when Meetecho came to tear down 
>the A/V setup, resulting in the most recent threads.  The IESG was 
>asked to proceed with the registration on the basis I described 
>above, but I'm inclined not to do so until this WG has published (or 
>at least the IESG has approved) the suffixes BCP; it doesn't make 
>sense to me to potentially derail a piece of chartered work 
>especially when it seems like we're converging on a solution.

Someone could file the registration request and include a note to RFC 
9399.  The chartered work cannot have retroactive effect.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy