ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: Adding a fragment identifier to the text/csv media type(see <draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-06.txt>)

2013-10-14 14:45:57
On 10/13/13 5:42 AM, t.p. wrote:
I find the security considerations in this registration rather weak.
What might have sufficed in 2005 seems to me inadequate for 2013.  I
would expect a clearer statement of what are or are not considered
threats or attacks and what mitigations there then are for them.

I don't know that everyone is really understanding the request that is being made here. It is a bit unusual.

RFC 4180 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180> contains the current registration for text/csv. That registration has the "Change Controller" as "IESG", which is to say it's a registration from an IETF document. Barring any change, that registration would remain exactly as it is (including its current Security Considerations).

Someone outside of the IETF is publishing a document describing how to use fragment identifiers with text/csv. That document is being published in the Independent Stream by the RFC Editor. Since the publication of RFC 4180, "fragment identifier" was added to the media type registration procedures. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-4.11> The present document (draft-hausenblas) wants to update the existing IETF registration to include it's idea of fragment identifiers (which was absent from the RFC 4180 registration), though it will leave the IETF (via the IESG) as "Change Controller".

This Last Call is to find out if the IETF is OK with a non-IETF document updating an IETF registration. If the answer is "no", then we leave the 4180 registration in place, or we tell the ISE that draft-hausenblas is not conforming to IETF processes and that we want it to be an IETF-stream document. If the answer is "yes", we go ahead with the registration change based on whatever the ISE publishes. We can send comments to the author and to the ISE asking for changes, but it's not an IETF document; IETF consensus is not required and the ISE can publish it anyway.

So, your Last Call comments are *simply* on the registration update. The document is not ours on which to comment.

pr

----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG"<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: "IETF Announcement List"<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc:<iana(_at_)iana(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:50 PM

The IESG has received a request to update the IANA registration of
the text/csv media type, adding an optional fragment identifier.
The request comes from a document in the Independent stream, and the
IESG is the change controller for the text/csv media type.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-10-24. Exceptionally, comments 
may
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The document making the request can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment/

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478