[media-types] Re: [MEDIAMAN] Standards tree registration and RFC 6838

Hi, speaking as an individual....

On 7/23/25 13:59, Amanda Baber wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to point out a few recurring standards tree media type 
> processing issues we see in IANA. RFC 6838 is unclear on these points:
>
>   * Requesters often have a hard time figuring out what their options
>     are if they don’t represent an SDO and can’t/don’t want to write
>     an IETF stream RFC. The process you can derive from Section 3.1,
>     as Ned Freed explained when he was the media type expert, was that
>     requesters could submit an independent stream I-D, and if the ISE
>     was willing to take it up, the expert could provide an informal
>     advisory review for the IESG to refer to. The IESG could then
>     approve the media type directly, if they chose (although they of
>     course wouldn’t approve the I-D itself). It was worked out that we
>     would coordinate this with the ISE around the time of the conflict
>     review. The section doesn’t really outline any of this, though.
>
I think the registration procedure we are contemplating would say "no".

If it's a community format, the rules for community formats allow 
community registration.

If it's not a community format, and not the product of an SDO, it should 
simply not go into the standards tree, and publishing a definition 
through the ISE should make no difference whatsoever.
If the ISE wishes to publish a community format, that's reasonable - but 
it has to be a valid community format independent of whether the ISE 
publishes it.

>  *
>
>
>   * Does the document need guidance for the IESG/ISE re: when an
>     independent submission is appropriate for standards tree
>     registration? (For what it’s worth, it’s been several years since
>     we received a request of this type.)
>
See above - with community registration, it should be irrelevant.
>
>  *
>
>
>   * Grandfathering can also be an option for standards tree
>     requesters, if the experts want to recommend approval to the IESG,
>     but it’s possible that the requirements for this are
>     underspecified. See Appendix A for this.
>
No particular opinion on this.
>
>  *
>
>
>   * The IESG isn’t really given guidance as to what constitutes a
>     standards organization for this purpose.
>
> I also want to check on whether these auxiliary-type registries are OK 
> as they are, as the instructions in 6838 are a little minimal:
>
>   * https://www.iana.org/assignments/iesg-recognized-organizations
>     <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iesg-recognized-organizations>(The
>     note is IESG-provided text from around the time of publication. I
>     wonder if it needs any rephrasing that would reflect the fact that
>     the IESG does have the ability to approve one-off registrations
>     from organizations without adding them to this list.)
>
My reading of the current draft's section 4.1.1 is that the IESG doesn't 
have that ability - if it approves an one-off registration, that's an 
IETF registration (bullet 1), not an SDO registration (bullet 2). So no 
more text required here.

YMMV.

>  *
>
>
>   * https://www.iana.org/assignments/provisional-standard-media-types
>     <https://www.iana.org/assignments/provisional-standard-media-types>
>
> I won’t be able to make the session, but Murray would be able to speak 
> to much of this, I think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amanda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]

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