RE: Registration of media type text/3gpp-tt
-----Original Message----- From: ned.freed@mrochek.com [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 4:43 AM To: Rey Jose Cc: IETF-Types; Colin Perkins Subject: RE: Registration of media type text/3gpp-tt
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. 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.**" Thanks, José
This type appears to be specified in an internet-draft that is destined to become an RFC. If that's the case, the media type will be reviewed as part of the IESG review and RFC publication process.
Ned
Jose, On 8 Oct 2004, at 10:44, Rey Jose wrote: ...
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. 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.**"
This is an AVT policy, to avoid last minute confusion and problems such as we had with the RTP payload format for text conversation; it's not a wider IETF requirement. If no comments result after a reasonable time period, so be it. Colin
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
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". Colin
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
On 10 Oct 2004, at 01:38, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
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.
The entire point of my message was to explain what has been said in AVT and to clarify that -- as should be obvious to anyone who attends IETF meetings -- nobody is obliged to comment. Colin
participants (3)
-
Colin Perkins -
ned.freed＠mrochek.com -
Rey Jose