Registration of Media types proposed by LC
The following media types are proposed for registration on the standards tree: application/mods+xml application/mads+xml application/mets+xml application/marcxml+xml application/sru+xml These are proposed by the Library of Congress on behalf of several constituencies including the library/bibliographic and metadata communities. These all correspond to standards maintained at the Library of Congress. Please see the document at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc for background and for the filled-out template as required by RFC 4288. According to RFC 4288, "Registration of a new media type or types starts with the construction of a registration proposal." This correspondence together with the above referenced document is intended to serve as construction of the proposal. RFC 4288 further states: "Proposals for media types registered in the standards tree by the IETF itself MUST be published as RFCs. Standards tree registrations for media types defined in documents produced by other standards bodies MUST be described by a formal standards specification produced by that body." Formal specifications are cited in the referenced document for each media type. So may I infer that an RFC is not necessary? Further .... "Proposed registrations in the standards tree by other standards bodies should be communicated to the IESG (at iesg@ietf.org) and to the ietf-types list (at ietf-types@iana.org). .. Notice of a potential media type registration in the standards tree MUST be sent to the "ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for review." Thus I an sending this correspondence to iesg@ietf.org and ietf-types@iana.org. Further.... "Provided that the media type meets all of the relevant requirements and has obtained whatever approval is necessary, the author may submit the registration request to the IANA... IESG approval in effect submits the registration to the IANA. There is no need for an additional registration request." Based on this I am not sure what further steps if any I need to take, so I await guidance. (I have not previously registered a media type.) Thank you. Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
Hello Ray, You could avoid writing an RFC if the actual standard contains the registration template, and if this template has been reviewed by the ietf-types list during development of that standard, and comments on this list have been taken into account. An example of this would be http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-emma-20071211/#media-type-registration. In your case, the situation is different. The document containing the registring templates is a simple ad-hoc Word document. [Also, on the home page for each of these formats, it is difficult to find an actual standards document as would e.g. be the case for the IETF, W3C, ISO, and so on. In some sense of 'formal', a schema document very much counts as a formal specification, but my guess is that the term "formal specification" used in RFC 4288 has a different meaning, more along "formal standards document" as e.g. an RFC on the Standards Track would be for the IETF.] What I would suggest is that you turn your current Word document into an Internet-Draft and proceed towards an RFC, so that the registration templates have a permanent form. Regards, Martin. At 07:01 09/03/06, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
The following media types are proposed for registration on the standards tree:
application/mods+xml application/mads+xml application/mets+xml application/marcxml+xml application/sru+xml
These are proposed by the Library of Congress on behalf of several constituencies including the library/bibliographic and metadata communities.
These all correspond to standards maintained at the Library of Congress.
Please see the document at: <http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc>http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc for background and for the filled-out template as required by RFC 4288.
According to RFC 4288, $BE3(Begistration of a new media type or types starts with the construction of a registration proposal.$BH"(B
This correspondence together with the above referenced document is intended to serve as construction of the proposal.
RFC 4288 further states: $BE1(Broposals for media types registered in the standards tree by the IETF itself MUST be published as RFCs. Standards tree registrations for media types defined in documents produced by other standards bodies MUST be described by a formal standards specification produced by that body.$BH"(B
Formal specifications are cited in the referenced document for each media type. So may I infer that an RFC is not necessary?
Further .... $BE1(Broposed registrations in the standards tree by other standards bodies should be communicated to the IESG (at iesg@ietf.org) and to the ietf-types list (at ietf-types@iana.org). $B)e(B Notice of a potential media type registration in the standards tree MUST be sent to the "ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for review.$BG�(B
Thus I an sending this correspondence to iesg@ietf.org and <mailto:ietf-types@iana.org>ietf-types@iana.org.
Further.... "Provided that the media type meets all of the relevant requirements and has obtained whatever approval is necessary, the author may submit the registration request to the IANA$B)e*"(B IESG approval in effect submits the registration to the IANA. There is no need for an additional registration request.$BG�(B
Based on this I am not sure what further steps if any I need to take, so I await guidance. (I have not previously registered a media type.)
Thank you.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thanks much, Martin. Based on your response I agree, the RFC route is the way to go. --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; <ietf-types@iana.org>; <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: "Sally H. McCallum" <smcc@loc.gov>; "Rebecca Guenther" <rgue@loc.gov>; "Clay Redding" <cred@loc.gov>; <ntra@loc.gov>; <mcundiff@loc.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:13 PM Subject: Re: Registration of Media types proposed by LC
Hello Ray,
You could avoid writing an RFC if the actual standard contains the registration template, and if this template has been reviewed by the ietf-types list during development of that standard, and comments on this list have been taken into account.
An example of this would be http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-emma-20071211/#media-type-registration.
In your case, the situation is different. The document containing the registring templates is a simple ad-hoc Word document.
[Also, on the home page for each of these formats, it is difficult to find an actual standards document as would e.g. be the case for the IETF, W3C, ISO, and so on. In some sense of 'formal', a schema document very much counts as a formal specification, but my guess is that the term "formal specification" used in RFC 4288 has a different meaning, more along "formal standards document" as e.g. an RFC on the Standards Track would be for the IETF.]
What I would suggest is that you turn your current Word document into an Internet-Draft and proceed towards an RFC, so that the registration templates have a permanent form.
Regards, Martin.
At 07:01 09/03/06, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
The following media types are proposed for registration on the standards tree:
application/mods+xml application/mads+xml application/mets+xml application/marcxml+xml application/sru+xml
These are proposed by the Library of Congress on behalf of several constituencies including the library/bibliographic and metadata communities.
These all correspond to standards maintained at the Library of Congress.
Please see the document at: <http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc>http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc for background and for the filled-out template as required by RFC 4288.
According to RFC 4288, 迭egistration of a new media type or types starts with the construction of a registration proposal.箱
This correspondence together with the above referenced document is intended to serve as construction of the proposal.
RFC 4288 further states: 撤roposals for media types registered in the standards tree by the IETF itself MUST be published as RFCs. Standards tree registrations for media types defined in documents produced by other standards bodies MUST be described by a formal standards specification produced by that body.箱
Formal specifications are cited in the referenced document for each media type. So may I infer that an RFC is not necessary?
Further .... 撤roposed registrations in the standards tree by other standards bodies should be communicated to the IESG (at iesg@ietf.org) and to the ietf-types list (at ietf-types@iana.org). ・ Notice of a potential media type registration in the standards tree MUST be sent to the "ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for review.・
Thus I an sending this correspondence to iesg@ietf.org and <mailto:ietf-types@iana.org>ietf-types@iana.org.
Further.... "Provided that the media type meets all of the relevant requirements and has obtained whatever approval is necessary, the author may submit the registration request to the IANA・「 IESG approval in effect submits the registration to the IANA. There is no need for an additional registration request.・
Based on this I am not sure what further steps if any I need to take, so I await guidance. (I have not previously registered a media type.)
Thank you.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
I have sketched an Internet Draft for the proposed media types. It is (temporarily) at http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/draft-denenberg.html. Please advise me what is the next step. Thanks. --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; <ietf-types@iana.org>; <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: "Sally H. McCallum" <smcc@loc.gov>; "Rebecca Guenther" <rgue@loc.gov>; "Clay Redding" <cred@loc.gov>; <ntra@loc.gov>; <mcundiff@loc.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 11:13 PM Subject: Re: Registration of Media types proposed by LC
Hello Ray,
You could avoid writing an RFC if the actual standard contains the registration template, and if this template has been reviewed by the ietf-types list during development of that standard, and comments on this list have been taken into account.
An example of this would be http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-emma-20071211/#media-type-registration.
In your case, the situation is different. The document containing the registring templates is a simple ad-hoc Word document.
[Also, on the home page for each of these formats, it is difficult to find an actual standards document as would e.g. be the case for the IETF, W3C, ISO, and so on. In some sense of 'formal', a schema document very much counts as a formal specification, but my guess is that the term "formal specification" used in RFC 4288 has a different meaning, more along "formal standards document" as e.g. an RFC on the Standards Track would be for the IETF.]
What I would suggest is that you turn your current Word document into an Internet-Draft and proceed towards an RFC, so that the registration templates have a permanent form.
Regards, Martin.
At 07:01 09/03/06, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
The following media types are proposed for registration on the standards tree:
application/mods+xml application/mads+xml application/mets+xml application/marcxml+xml application/sru+xml
These are proposed by the Library of Congress on behalf of several constituencies including the library/bibliographic and metadata communities.
These all correspond to standards maintained at the Library of Congress.
Please see the document at: <http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc>http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc for background and for the filled-out template as required by RFC 4288.
According to RFC 4288, 迭egistration of a new media type or types starts with the construction of a registration proposal.箱
This correspondence together with the above referenced document is intended to serve as construction of the proposal.
RFC 4288 further states: 撤roposals for media types registered in the standards tree by the IETF itself MUST be published as RFCs. Standards tree registrations for media types defined in documents produced by other standards bodies MUST be described by a formal standards specification produced by that body.箱
Formal specifications are cited in the referenced document for each media type. So may I infer that an RFC is not necessary?
Further .... 撤roposed registrations in the standards tree by other standards bodies should be communicated to the IESG (at iesg@ietf.org) and to the ietf-types list (at ietf-types@iana.org). ・ Notice of a potential media type registration in the standards tree MUST be sent to the "ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for review.・
Thus I an sending this correspondence to iesg@ietf.org and <mailto:ietf-types@iana.org>ietf-types@iana.org.
Further.... "Provided that the media type meets all of the relevant requirements and has obtained whatever approval is necessary, the author may submit the registration request to the IANA・「 IESG approval in effect submits the registration to the IANA. There is no need for an additional registration request.・
Based on this I am not sure what further steps if any I need to take, so I await guidance. (I have not previously registered a media type.)
Thank you.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
2009/5/4 Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>:
I have sketched an Internet Draft for the proposed media types. It is (temporarily) at http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/draft-denenberg.html.
Please advise me what is the next step.
Hi Ray. You will need to provide an instance of the registration template for each media type, rather than trying to register 5 types in one template. IANA needs this. You can still do this in one I-D though, just use separate sections for each template. Once this is done, submit the draft for publication and let us know when that's complete. I've removed the IESG from the CC list, as they aren't needed yet. Mark.
I tried to submit this Internet Draft, via https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi, but it repeatedly rejected the request (saying "A plain text document must be submitted" even though I included one). Anyway please accept submission of the following Internet Draft: html: http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/internet-drafts/draft-denenberg-mods-etc-me... word: http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/internet-drafts/draft-denenberg-mods-etc-me... pdf : http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/internet-drafts/draft-denenberg-mods-etc-me... text: http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/internet-drafts/draft-denenberg-mods-etc-me... The "text" version doesn't look so good. Creating it was very painful. I suggest looking at one of the other versions. Mark - I made the changes you mentioned. Thanks. Please let me know what I need to do next. Ray Denenberg Library of Congress ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov> Cc: <ietf-types@iana.org>; "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 5:13 PM Subject: Re: Registration of Media types proposed by LC 2009/5/4 Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>:
I have sketched an Internet Draft for the proposed media types. It is (temporarily) at http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/draft-denenberg.html.
Please advise me what is the next step.
Hi Ray. You will need to provide an instance of the registration template for each media type, rather than trying to register 5 types in one template. IANA needs this. You can still do this in one I-D though, just use separate sections for each template. Once this is done, submit the draft for publication and let us know when that's complete. I've removed the IESG from the CC list, as they aren't needed yet. Mark.
participants (3)
-
Mark Baker -
Martin Duerst -
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress