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

Hi Murray,

It looks like this requester's been waiting for a response since 5/22. I'm not sure what to tell them. 

thanks,
Amanda

On Tue Jun 17 02:21:17 2025, amanda.baber wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> 
> I'm not sure what the advice for the requester is at this point. I
> think this is what we've got so far:
> 
> - They make the case to DISPATCH that this is work that should be
> supported by the IETF and see what they recommend (noting here that
> they don't appear to be familiar with IETF processes)
> 
> - The path of least resistance is a registration on the vendor tree,
> once we have an actual specification to look at.  An independent
> stream publication would meet this requirement.
> 
> Would an I-D that's never published as an RFC be acceptable for a
> vendor-tree registration?
> 
> If not, and publication is required, given Ned's earlier instructions
> that we send standards-tree requests in independent-stream I-Ds to the
> IESG around the time of the conflict review, it's not clear whether
> there's any benefit in requesting vendor-tree registration in an I-D.
> (I do see that one vendor-tree type was registered that way back in
> 2017, though, for RFC 8216. That type would've been approved by the
> experts rather than the IESG.)
> 
> Would these be their possible routes?
> 
> - approach DISPATCH (standards tree)
> - if not DISPATCH, approach the ISE (standards tree)
> - if neither, or if they want to register more quickly and deprecate
> the initial registration later, produce a non-IETF spec (vendor tree)
> 
> More information about IESG approval for media types: since RFC 6838
> was published, we've only requested this (per the experts) in two
> situations: either an independent-stream I-D requested it, and the
> expert didn't see any issues, or the expert believed that a certain
> degree of documented use meant that the grandfathering approach
> described in RFC 6838, Appendix A was appropriate. (This was used
> recently for application/toml, stratum, and texinfo.)
> 
> (Of course, the IESG could technically approve any kind of
> registration request, given that RFC 8126, Section 3.3 says that the
> IESG "is granted authority to override registration procedures and
> approve assignments on a case-by-case basis," but we haven't been
> asked to request this.)
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> On Tue Jun 10 16:05:48 2025, [email protected] wrote:
> > Apparently I've been thinking about this a lot today.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:57 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
> > <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > (1) Invoke the previous process to get it onto the standards tree
> > > by just
> > > having the IESG approve it either as a direct submission to the
> > > reviewers
> > > or an ISE publication;
> > >
> > >
> > Of course, if I were on the IESG, I might not know how to decide
> > whether to
> > approve this.  Why would we not approve onto the standards tree
> > anyone that
> > bothers to ask?
> >
> > -MSK

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