Fwd: Update: experiences with SOAP media type registration

I've been asked to forward this to the IETF main list FYI.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mark Nottingham <mark(_dot_)nottingham(_at_)bea(_dot_)com>
> Date: November 2, 2003 5:44:28 PM PST
> To: public-ietf-w3c(_at_)w3(_dot_)org
> Cc: Xml-Dist-App(_at_)W3(_dot_) Org <xml-dist-app(_at_)w3(_dot_)org>
> Subject: Update: experiences with SOAP media type registration
> Reply-To: public-ietf-w3c(_at_)w3(_dot_)org
>
> Since sending the message below, the IESG considered and rejected the  
> registration of the application/soap+xml media type, apparently  
> because the draft did not actually contain its registration (instead,  
> it referenced the registration in the SOAP specifications), and  
> because it referenced works in progress (e.g., the SOAP 1.2  
> specifications, which were not REC at the time).
> Unfortunately, the IESG did not notify the authors of the  
> Internet-Draft of the decision made by e-mail; Ned Freed has said that  
> the rejection was communicated to people "on the W3C concalls," but  
> this information didn't filter down to the WG. (If anyone has  
> information about this, please contact me; we still need to resolve  
> the registration of application/soap+xml).
> A note was placed in the IESG's Web datatracker[1], but this was a  
> comment from another IESG member about the shortcomings of the Draft,  
> not an actual decision regarding the status of the Draft, which was  
> only updated after Ned discovered the omission and changed the  
> document's status. No e-mail notification of any of this (except as  
> below) has been received by the Draft's authors.
> I (and therefore the WG) only found out about this because of e-mail  
> discussion following from comments I made to regarding  
> draft-freed-mime-p4-04; if I had not made those comments, I'm  
> reasonably certain we still wouldn't know the status of the I-D.
> I'd also note that the IESG appears to administer its responsibilities  
> in a more informal fashion than the W3C does (e.g., the Draft wasn't  
> added to the datatracker until September 11, e-mailing the authors of  
> a Draft about its status isn't seen as necessary, and it's thought  
> adequate notification of a problem when an IESG member comments  
> without changing a Draft's status). As a result, it may be necessary  
> to be in more constant contact with the IESG to ascertain the status  
> of a particular Draft.
> My recommendation to future W3C WGs that need to register media types  
> would be to co-ordinate with the W3C liaison to get a periodic update  
> of their Drafts' status from the IESG (anecdotal evidence shows that  
> individual queries to members of the IESG are often not responded to).
>
> 1.   
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
> command=view_id&dTag=8198&rfc_flag=0
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2003, at 2:32 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> > [ note that followups are set to public-ietf-w3c only]
> >
> > The XML Protocol Working Group, as part of its work, needs to  
> > register the "application/soap+xml" media type with IANA. Although  
> > this task has been shared by many people, I've been responsible for  
> > driving the actual registration over the last few months. This note  
> > documents my experiences with the registration process, as directed  
> > by an action item given to me by the XML Protocol WG on 03 Sep 2003.
> > Our approach to registration was informed by a number of sources:
> >   1) WG members' previous experiences with media type registration  
> > (myself, Mark Baker, Yves Lafon)
> >   2) RFC2048, Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:  
> > Registration Procedures
> >   3) W3C guidelines (although we were not immediately aware of these)
> >   4) Feedback from the IESG (or individuals comprising it or acting  
> > on its behalf) and RFC Editor.
> > Previous experiences were mixed; at times, the RFC Editor and/or IESG  
> > appear to have operated under different procedures. Based on them, we  
> > initially requested that the RFC Editor publish the I-D as an  
> > Informational RFC, believing that any necessary clearance by the IESG  
> > would be gained in due course. This proved not to be the case (see  
> > timeline).
> > RFC2048 is ambiguous from a process standpoint, regarding  
> > registration of IETF-tree media types; it says;
> > [[[
> > 2.3.  Registration Procedure
> >    [...]
> >    For registration in the IETF tree, the normal IETF processes should
> >    be followed, treating posting of an internet-draft and announcement
> >    on the ietf-types list (as described in the next subsection) as a
> >    first step.
> >   [...]
> > 2.3.2.  IESG Approval
> >
> >    Media types registered in the IETF tree must be submitted to the  
> > IESG
> >    for approval.
> >
> > 2.3.3.  IANA Registration
> >
> >    Provided that the media type meets the requirements for media types
> >    and has obtained approval that is necessary, the author may submit
> >    the registration request to the IANA, which will register the media
> >    type and make the media type registration available to the  
> > community.
> > ]]]
> >
> > However, it does not indicate when in relation to RFC publication  
> > IESG approval must be requested, nor does it say how to go about  
> > gaining IESG approval.
> >
> > W3C guidelines <http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype>  
> > don't specify the full process for RFC publication, and advise  
> > pinging the IESG secretary; upon doing so, we encountered problems  
> > (see timeline).
> >
> > * Timeline
> >   17 Jun 2003 - request for publication as an Internet-Draft sent to  
> > internet-drafts (draft had been previously circulated on ietf-types  
> > list, and changes to -03 were only editorial)
> >   18 Jun 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
> >   09 Jul 2003 - request for publication as an Informational RFC sent  
> > to rfc-editor
> >   10 Jul 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
> >   21 Aug 2003 - rfc-editor feedback stating that IESG approval must  
> > be requested by the author, and that the document's reference of a  
> > W3C specification may not meet the publication requirement (see  
> > attached)
> >   21 Aug 2003 - query sent to RFC Editor and IESG regarding proper  
> > procedure and appropriate use of references to W3C materials (not  
> > acknowledged or answered as of yet)
> >   29 Aug 2003 - request for last call / approval by the IESG sent to  
> > iesg-secretary
> >   29 Aug 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
> >   08 Sep 2003 - Statement from bfuller(_at_)fortec(_dot_)com that only an AD can  
> > request a Last Call, and that there are procedural issues regarding  
> > this type of publication.  (see attached)
> > In short, the process for non-WG submitted IETF tree media type  
> > registrations is unclear to both the RFC Editor and the IESG  
> > secretary at this time.
> >
> > <draft-baker-soap-media-reg-03>
> >
> > <Re: [iesg-secretary #13379] Last Call for>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> > Office of the CTO   BEA Systems