On Tue March 15 2005 16:25, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures '
<draft-freed-media-type-reg-02.txt> as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
2005-04-12.
[...]
Comments, in same order as the draft (though some as noted apply in
general or to multiple sections of the draft):
Section 13 heading in table of contents and in the actual section
contains a spelling error: "Acknowledgements" should be
"Acknowledgments".
According to two dictionaries I checked (Random House and Ultralingua) both
spelling are acceptable. But shorter is better so I'll switch to the shorter.
Historical Note, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line needs a period and additional
space character at the end of the first sentence (i.e. between
"environments" and " This").
Fixed.
Formatting seems a bit peculiar (e.g. huge empty space on page 5).
An unavoidable consequence of the "put each major section on a new
page" rule imposed by xml2rfc.
There does not appear to be any mention of case-insensitivity of
media type and subtype names (e.g. sect. 3 w.r.t. tree and facet
names, sect. 4 w.r.t. additional name components). [see also RFC
1958 section 4.3]
I'll add a note to this effect.
Section 4.2.1 might benefit from a clarification of "text" as
communication in a natural language intended primarily for human
consumption (perhaps something like the description in BCP 18).
Perhaps, but this text was very carefully crafted after a long
debate and I don't feel comfortable changing it.
Section 4.2.6 contains a spelling error: "labelled" should be
"labeled".
Again, your dictionary needs some new entries. Both spellings are perfectly
acceptable. I'll change it since shorter is better.
Syntax of parameter attribute names is significantly changed from
that of RFC 2045 as amended by RFC 2231 and errata. Those RFCs
prohibited '%' and tspecials, while the draft specifies "reg-name"
as defined in the draft, which explicitly includes '%'. [draft
sections 4.2, 4.3]
Yep, % is now reserved in parameter names at least. Forgot about that. I'll
remove it from the ABNF. This also will prevent it from being used in a media
type name, but that's hardly a bad thing...
More generally, the intent here is to have an explicit list of what characters
can be used, as opposed to defining what's allowed by exclusion. The result is
deliberately intended to be more restrictive than what's actually allowed by
the RFC 2045 ABNF.
Section 4.8 introduces "framed" content type, but that change is
not noted in Appendix B.
Added.
As "Mac OS" is a somewhat obscure platform, and as the registration
template provides for "Mac OS" "Type codes", a normative reference
providing information on those codes would be appropriate in
section 4.11.
Suggestions welcome as to what an appropriate reference would be.
Section 4.11 refers to RFC 2396, which (according to the rfc-index)
has been obsoleted by RFC 3986.
Updated.
Section 5.4 references RFC 2026 regarding decisions made by the
media types reviewer, but RFC 2026 does not contain any text
specifically regarding media types review. RFC 2026 section 6.5
discusses conflict resolution and has three parts, none of which
seem apropos to media type review (6.5.1 Working Group disputes,
6.5.2 [IESG] Process Failures, and 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable
Procedure) [publication of the draft as-is as a BCP might raise
a question of applicable procedure]. At minimum, some clarification
(regarding which section(s) of RFC 2026 is meant to apply) seems
necessary.
It is not necessary for RFC 2026 to have text specifically dealing with the
case of appealing a reviewer decision. RFC 2026 specifies what's necessary to
appeal something, and that's sufficient. The fact that RFC 2026 also deals with
several specific sorts of appeals and why they might arise is not relevant.
I see no real reason to add anything here, but I'll make the reference specific
to section 6.5.4 (which describes the actual appeals procedure).
The section 6 procedure (modified from RFC 2048 section 2.4) doesn't
seem to be effective in practice. While the additional step of review
by the media types reviewer might be an improvement, specific
statements regarding necessary IANA actions should probably be included
in the IANA Considerations section (the present IANA Considerations
section seems somewhat sparse).
Well, if the goal is to make the procedure more effective, the last thing we
need to do is nail it down more precisely. This has been shown over and over
and over again to be an inhibiting factor in this general space, not a
facilitator.
What really needs to happen here is for someone to issue a comment on a
registration and let the process run. If this turns up a problem we can examine
it and amend the process accordingly. And if it doesn't, if it ain't broke...
In any case, I am extrelemy reluctant to twiddle with this further in the
absence of any "running code".
Section 8 is somewhat unclear regarding standards tree registration
requirements. It states "Registrations in the standards tree MUST
satisfy the additional requirement that they originate from the
IETF itself or from another standards body recognized as such by the
IETF". Ignoring the part about "another standards body", there is
some ambiguity regarding standards tree registrations using IETF
procedures (i.e. published RFCs). The ambiguity arises from the
phrase "originate from the IETF itself", coupled with the fact that
"the IETF" is not a well-defined set. It is unclear whether or not
an individual submission RFC (as distinct from an RFC which is the
product of an IETF working group) qualifies for registration of a
media type or subtype in the standards tree.
The vagueness here is intentional since it isn't clear who gets to make the
call as to whether or not some other organization is a standards body or not.
If the IESG and/or IAB wants this changed they can request a change with
specific text. Absent that I'm not touching it, as I believe I have told you
when you brought the matter up previously.
Section 9 raises some issues which should probably be incorporated
into the IANA Considerations section so that IANA's roles are
consolidated in one place as mentioned above.
I disagree with making this change. The entire documement, more or less, is
about IANA considerations and the IANA considerations section says as much.
Several of the references are amended by other RFCS (e.g. RFC 2231
amends normative reference RFC 2045) or by errata maintained by the
RFC Editor. Additional references to those amending RFCs and
errata should probably be included.
I disagree. I don't think a reference to RFC 2231 is necessary. I also think
including references to errata is neither necessary or appropriate. Moreover,
including them opens a huge can of worms as to whether or not an errata can be
normative. This is a sleeping dog I'm going to let lie.
A list of the specific media types which are affected by ownership
and change control principles in the draft should probably be included
in Appendix A.
It might be nice but I don't think such a list is necessary, so unless someone
else produces it I'm not going to add it.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf