Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
IANA made the assignment because this document:
was approved for publication as a Proposed Standard by the IESG on
2004-03-23 and the document is now in the RFC Editor's queue. The IANA
actions have to be completed before the document can be finished by the RFC
While I can understand the rationale, it does pose some difficulties for
implementors; lacking an RFC, implementors are at somewhat of a loss to
provide justification for handling the MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, etc.
provisions of the applicable specification ("Under no circumstances
should an Internet-Draft be referenced [...[ nor should a vendor claim
compliance with an Internet-Draft" -- RFC 2026). Some coordination
between the rfc-editor and IANA would be helpful to implementors. Having
the RFC first (which includes the registration template information for
the relevant media type) would not be a problem, as I see it. whereas
the current situation (registered media type with no document that can
be referenced) does pose problems. Ideally the RFC and IANA registration
would happen simultaneously; RFC first seems workable, but registration w/o
RFC causes difficulties.
The msgtrk working group will be closed once the remaining documents (all of
which are in the RFC Editor's queue) are published as RFCs.
It's a shame that the draft in question (16 months old) has a number of
oddities -- being based on RFC 1894 -- which have been corrected in RFC 3464
(e.g. reference to "xtext", which would by analogy be equivalent to me
pointing out that dictionaries provide a definition of the word "rhinoceros",
which is otherwise not used anywhere in this message).
So presumably comments such as the "xtext" issue would have to be directed to
the RFC editor/authors once the RFC is published.