It is more than 2 weeks since I sent this in for consideration. Could you please inform me about the status? I would like to proceed ASAP with WGLC in AVT but cannot without passing this review.
The ietf-types list is for informal media type reviews only. It is not where types are "considered" or "approved". Somtimes people comment on registrations, other times they don't.
Yes, you are right, "review" is the correct term.
However, reading the attached email from Colin, I understand that this review is 'required' for WGLC.
I'm reminded of an exchange from, I believe, Farmer's _The Riders of the Purple Wage_: Man to God: Sir, I exist! God to Man: Quite true, but that creates in me no sense of obligation. Having a requirement that some other group review something before it can be passed only makes sense if that other group is in some way obliged to actually do a review. No such obligation exists in this case, and past experience has been that such arrangement work badly or not at all in the IETF. This means that either (a) The absence of any comments needs to be construed as something akin to a neutral revew or (b) The requirement is specious and needs to be replaced or abandoned.
This means that whether this review is "no comments" or there are in fact comments, I (we) have to know in order to progress the document. Specially this part (original attached):
"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.**"
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. Ned