Re: draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt

> This looks very good.  It still might be useful to provide a little more
> of the information from
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype> to give hints to other
> standards bodies about the ordering of their draft, to publishing an
> I-D, to last calls, to their publication, to informational RFC
> publication.  I believe this caused some confusion with the W3C until it
> was worked out, and informatively referencing the W3C process might even
> be useful.

I actually this it is sort of the other way around -- this procedure needs to
be updated to reflect the new draft. I don't see anything in the W3C procedure
that really belongs in registration procedure and which isn't already there.

> Also, RFC 3023 updated RFC 2048.  Could you please reference RFC 3023
> and explicitly mention the prohibition from RFC 3023 that, "media
> subtypes that do not represent XML MIME entities MUST NOT be allowed to
> register with a '+xml' suffix".

Good idea. Added.

> You might reference this whole paragraph from section 7 of RFC 3023:

>    [T]hose registering [XML] media types SHOULD use the '+xml'
>    convention unless they have a particularly compelling reason not
> to....
>    The registrar for the IETF tree will encourage new XML-
>    based media type registrations in the IETF tree to follow this
>    guideline.  Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this convention
>    in order to ensure maximum interoperability of their XML-based
>    documents.  Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent XML MIME
>    entities MUST NOT be allowed to register with a '+xml' suffix.

Rather than reiterall the rules for XML media type registration I've
added a section that refers to RFC 3023.

				Ned