
On 9 Oct 2004, at 17:27, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: ...
It isn't clear to me that this actually refers to the ietf-types list, but perhaps that was stated in some other message. In any case, an process that relies on someone on the ietf-types list saying something is inherently broken and needs to be fixed.
My original message to the AVT mailing list said:
In future, as new RTP payload formats are developed, we will require expert review of the media type registration as part of the working group last call process. Please contact the chairs for guidance on the procedure for this review, when you believe your draft is ready for working group last call. We will not forward drafts to the IESG for publication unless they have received such review. [http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg04287.html]
Several weeks later, when Jose asked for guidance on how the review should be conducted, and if it should occur before or in parallel with the working group last call, I respond:
Before the working group last call. You should send a note to the <ietf-types at iana.org> mailing list (which was cc'd on much of the previous discussion) asking for review of the MIME registration, to ensure there are no objections. [http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg04520.html]
This is consistent with section 5.1 of draft-freed-media-type-reg-01.txt, which states that the list is appropriate for initial community review of media types:
In all cases notice of a potential media type registration MAY be sent to the "ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for review. This mailing list has been established for the purpose of reviewing proposed media and access types.
The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback on the choice of type/subtype name, the unambiguity of the references with respect to versions and external profiling information, and a review of any interoperability or security considerations. The submitter may submit a revised registration, or abandon the registration completely, at any time.
We place no greater requirement or obligation on this list than does your document, and as I said in my reply to Jose (and this list) yesterday "If no comments result after a reasonable time period, so be it".
Again, that's fine as long as it is understood that nobody is obliged to comment. Ned