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

On 10/16/25 13:07, Rahul Gupta wrote:
> Hi Mediaman,
> 
> I think the document is ready for publication, but I have one concern (a few comments/suggestions) before it is sent to IESG.
> 
>  From the text, the process of registry maintenance is still unclear to me. I had previously raised the issue of missing templates in #7 and was at that time satisfied with Mark's suggestions. I believe Alexey is also looking into the specific registrations I pointed out. However, I would still prefer to see greater clarity on the maintenance procedure, from a 3rd party (or even a D.E.) identifying deficiencies in a registration to how they are to be rectified. If that process might come from IANAbis, that should be clarified here.
> 
> 
> Concerning that, I had also asked IANA about the possibility of maintaining a history of changes to a registration. I don't recall if this was discussed. I'll check back again during this IETF meeting.
> 
> For the comments please see issues #20, #78, #79. None of these are blockers.
> 
> BR/Rahul
> 
> PS: One peeve, if you might indulge me, is that the documents asks one to "note" things in quite a few places. And here I thought that everything in an RFC should be notable.

A note upon notes: Traditionally, "Note:" has been used as an 
introduction to paragraphs that contain non-normative text. So "Note: 
MUST NOT" would be very bad form, but "Note: this will make things very 
confusing" is a note.

Or that's how I've seen it used in other places.

> 
> On Thursday, October 2nd, 2025 at 5:43 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[email protected]> 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]