[media-types] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-mediaman-6838bi s-06

Hello Harald, others,

I have read draft-ietf-mediaman-6838bis-06, and oppose publication in
its current form, for the reasons below.

I have found a few things that I think should be fixed before sending 
this for IETF-wide last call.

- Grammar difference between title and abstract:
   the title has "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures",
   the abstract has "procedures for the specification and registration
   of media types". Are specifications separate from procedures (title),
   or do we give specifications for procedures (abstract)? We should
   be consistent here.

- Intro: "are capable of carrying arbitrary labeled content":
   It's easy to misread this as "arbitrarily labeled content".
   Maybe better "arbitrary content, if properly labeled".

- "or even certification that the specification is adequate":
   "certification" is a very high bar. I think something like
   "or any kind of assertion that the specification is adequate"
   would be more appropriate.

- "All registered media types MUST employ a single,
   canonical data format": This can easily be read to say that e.g.
   only Canonical XML, Canonical CBOR, Canonical JSON, and so on
   are allowed. That's clearly not what we want to say.
   Maybe the intent is to disallow something like xml-or-json
   (if the first character is '<', it's XML, if the first character
    is '{', it's JSON), but I don't think disallowing this should
   be necessary: As long as the idea sounds silly, nobody should
   be interested in a registration anyway. Later, if somebody can show
   a good use case, there's no need to oppose registration.

- 2.3: Naming: I'd expect the document to say somewhere that
   (top-level) type and subtype are separated by a slash. But the word
   'slash' doesn't appear in the document at all. There's also
   no grammar rule for a full media type.

I'm sorry I didn't get any further than section 2.3, but I'll continue 
my review tomorrow.

Regards,   Martin.


On 2025-10-02 21:13, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> This message initiates a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf- 
> mediaman-6838bis-06.
> 
> The Last Call lasts for 2 weeks, and ends on October 16, 2025, at 23:59 
> GMT.
> 
> To respond to the Last Call, respond on the mailing list with one of 
> three forms:
> 
> - I have read draft-ietf-mediaman-6838bis-06, and think that it can be 
> sent to the IESG for approval with no changes.
> 
> - I have read draft-ietf-mediaman-6838bis-06, and think that it can be 
> sent to the IESG for approval with the following issues fixed: 
> (reference to github issues)
> 
> - I have read draft-ietf-mediaman-6838bis-06, and oppose publication in 
> its current form, for the reasons given in (reference to github issues, 
> or inline reasons)
> 
> There are a number of issues open on the draft, resulting from 
> preliminary reviews, but the chairs judge these to be relatively minor - 
> they need to be resolved one way or the other before we send the draft 
> to the IESG, but the chairs think that how we resolve these will not 
> affect whether or not the WG has consensus to ask for publication; 
> people who disagree with this should use form 3 above.
> 
> If the result of the WG Last Call is conclusive, we may be able to send 
> the document to the IESG before Montreal; if it is not, we have our 
> agenda set out for Montreal.
> 
> Harald, for the chairs.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

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