On 11/2/10 4:50 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
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.
Thanks. I remember I saw this somewhere ;-).
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)?
Errata is reserved for small corrections. This is not small. This needs
IETF review.
Agreed.
But If people want, I can ask the rest of IESG about registering a MIME
type in an erratum.
IMHO it would be preferable to either (a) write a small, separate spec
or (b) publish 5784bis. It seems to me that (a) would be a lower-impact
effort.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve