(internet-drafts@ietf.org removed from distribution) --On Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:23 -0400 Nick Bogaty <nbogaty@idpf.org> wrote:
To whom it may concern,
We apologize for the errors in our previous submissions.
Please see the below URL pointing to a Media Type Registration for the Open Container Format (OCF), "application/epub+zip", to be processed as an informational RFC. It has gone through a two week community review period via the iesg@ietf.org and ietf-types@iana.org.
To be strictly accurate, it has been announced on the ietf-types list, but there have been no substantive comments or review. A few procedural comments (references are to RFC 4288 unless otherwise noted). These comments do not address the substantive content of the proposal. These comments represent my personal observations only; they are not official IETF statements or positions. (1) The proposed name, application/epub+zip, appears to be intended for registration in the standards tree (Section 3 generally and 3.1 in particular). That is acceptable if IDPF is a "recognized standards body" and the definitional document is one of its "formal publications". Whether IDPF is considered to be a "recognized standards body" is up to the IESG, but that designation, in my opinion, usually requires some evidence of an open consensus process (including a review process not restricted to members). Industry consortia are generally not considered "recognized standards bodies". I can find no documented procedures for review and approval of documents, other than a statement about work occurring in working groups, on the IDPF web site. (2) Name forms of a "+suffix" variety are discouraged unless the suffix is well-established (Section 4.2). "+xml" is established as a suffix. "+zip" is not. For reasons that were extensively discussed when the media type system was established, the name of a well-known compression scheme is probably inappropriate for a suffix. So, unless you propose to document the need for that particular suffix independent of specific efforts by IPDF, I would recommend against a standards tree registration containing a "+" in the subtype name. (3) The registration template at http://www.idpf.org/draft-conboy-mime-opf-00.txt is not a registration template for application/epub+zip at all, but one for application/oebps-package+xml. The link originally announced (http://www.idpf.org/draft-idpf-mime-ocf-01.txt) is now dead. Please clarify what you are trying to register and make the registration template consistent with the name and content of your announcements to the ietf-types list. (4) Publication as an Informational RFC requires that the document itself be first posted as an Internet-Draft and not merely placed in the correct format on a private web site (RFC 2223, 4844, 4846). The relevant instructions are referenced from http://www.ietf.org/ID http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html and http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html are particularly relevant. I note, however, that draft-conboy-mime-opf-00.txt, cited as the relevant registration template, has already been published, as RFC 4839. But, as mentioned above, it describes an entirely different media type. So it is, at best, unclear to me what you are trying to do here and where the supporting documentation can be located. regards, John Klensin
The application/template is located at:
http://www.idpf.org/draft-conboy-mime-opf-00.txt
The published epub specification can be found at:
http://www.idpf.org/ocf/ocf1.0/download/ocf10.htm
Please send any questions to myself, Nick Bogaty, at nbogaty@idpf.org. Thanks, Nick -- Nick Bogaty Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) nbogaty@idpf.org www.idpf.org (212) 924-9081 direct (212) 208-0978 fax