[media-types] [IANA #1418198] application/vnd.angel. evidence-package registration request

Hi Murray, 

Resending this one.

thanks,
Amanda

On Thu May 22 19:02:58 2025, amanda.baber wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> 
> More information from the requester:
> 
> "I'm still getting my head around the I-D process -- I'm currently
> submitting the draft for the independent stream (which seemed to make
> sense to me as I have no affiliation with any larger organisation that
> might have some power to influence!). If the media type can be
> assigned to the standards tree based on this, as far as I am concerned
> this is the best option, after all Eden and I designed the format to
> be as useful as possible for a wider audience! I wonder, if this is
> the case, something like application/evidence-package might be more
> suitable (i.e. also dropping the "angel." which is the name of the
> suite of tools containing an implementation of the format)."
> 
> They also asked for information about how to submit the I-D for
> inclusion in the IETF stream. Should they be directed to a particular
> working group?
> 
> In the past, a few standards-tree media type registrations were made
> via independent stream RFCs. Nevil, I think, coordinated the separate
> IESG approval process (for the type itself) with us around the time of
> the conflict review. It's been several years since we've seen one of
> those, though.
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> On Mon May 19 19:53:19 2025, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 6:36 PM Amanda Baber via RT <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > The requester adds, "I intend to publish a formal format
> > > > > specification
> > > on
> > > > > the same GitHub repository (lilopkins/evidenceangel) soon."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What's the timeline on such publication?  I'm tempted to suggest
> > > > holding
> > > a
> > > > final decision until we can see that.
> > >
> > > The timeline for format publication is likely within a week or so.
> > > I
> > > do
> > > intend to publish this as an RFC once I have worked out a few of
> > > the
> > > finer
> > > details, and am happy to wait for the media type allocation until
> > > this is
> > > handled if that is preferred.
> > >
> >
> > I see that this has been published, apparently with intent to seek
> > publication as an RFC.  If that's being done in the IETF stream, this
> > becomes eligible for a place on the standards tree.  Do we want to
> > proceed
> > with a vendor tree registration or just leave it to the publication
> > of
> > that
> > document?
> >
> >
> > > > > =====
> > > > >
> > > > > Name: Lily Hopkins
> > > > >
> > > > > Email: [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > Media type name: application
> > > > >
> > > > > Media subtype name: vnd.angel.evidence-package
> > > > >
> > > > > Required parameters: N/A
> > > > >
> > > > > Optional parameters: N/A
> > > > >
> > > > > Encoding considerations: binary
> > > > >
> > > > > Security considerations: This type can store arbitrary files
> > > > > and
> > > > > data
> > > > > within it. These files are never executed and must only be
> > > > > expanded
> > > from
> > > > > the format. Potentially, data might be handled in other manners
> > > > > when
> > > > > exported to another format, this should be handled by the
> > > > > exporting
> > > code.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interoperability considerations: The format is based upon the
> > > > > application/zip format, with specific internal structure. Other
> > > software
> > > > > could implement specific ways to handle this format, or may
> > > > > just
> > > handle it
> > > > > as an application/zip file. Software that implements this
> > > > > format
> > > > > should
> > > > > expect that it may have invalid internal data, and should
> > > > > handle
> > > > > this
> > > > > reasonably.
> > > > >
> > > > > As such, this format can interoperate similarly to
> > > > > application/zip.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are there any prior versions of this media type out in the wild?
> > > >
> > > > Are there any concerns with interoperation across platforms or
> > > > particular
> > > > transports?
> > >
> > > The current scope of this format is very limited to the best of my
> > > knowledge, and data has not been shared beyond a small group of
> > > about
> > > 5
> > > testers. There has been a previous version, however the change
> > > introduced a
> > > new field and this is backwards compatible.
> > >
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >
> > > There are no concerns for interoperation in the context of
> > > platforms
> > > or
> > > transports.
> > >
> >
> > Please say this as part of "Interoperability considerations".
> >
> > -MSK

_______________________________________________
media-types mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]