Hmm, I don't believe that is the rule that IESG was
enforcing. Only other recognized SDOs can register a
new MIME type in the Standards tree without an RFC.
From RFC 4288:
The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the
Internet community. Registrations in the standards tree MUST be
approved by the IESG and MUST correspond to a formal publication by a
recognized standards body. In the case of registration for the IETF
itself, the registration proposal MUST be published as an RFC.
Standards-tree registration RFCs can either be standalone
"registration only" RFCs, or they can be incorporated into a more
general specification of some sort.
However, it would be interesting to see if the IESG would accept the
registration as an erratum to RFC 5784. Since 5784 already defines
everything else, and this was an oversight (and, therefore, and erratum),
and the IESG already approved 5784, that sounds reasonable to me. Why go
through the unnecessary extra work and expense of a separate RFC (review,
RFC editor work, etc)?
Barry
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve