Subject: [media-types] View pending media-type applications?

From: "Michael[tm] Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:50:09 +0900

Is there still no public Web‐based interface to view details of media‐type
applications that have been submitted via http://www.iana.org/form/media-types
but not approved yet?

  ーMike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:20:22 -0800 (PST)

> applications that have been submitted via http://www.iana.org/form/media-types

No, and there's no "still" about it - AFAIK there is no plan to offer such  a
thing, and I would object if there were. The goal is always to get things
registered, and exposing initial attempts, warts and all, to public scrutiny
doesn't seem like a good way to further that goal.

There is a provisional registry to expose the names of in-progress standards
tree registrations, but not the details. That's available here:

    http://www.iana.org/assignments/provisional-standard-media-types/provisional-standard-media-types.xhtml

I note in passing that the review queue is presently empty. So there are no
media types waiting for IANA action, if that's what you're interesting in
finding out.

				Ned

---

From: "Michael[tm] Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:59:15 +0900

Hi Ned,

Ned Freed <[email-masked]>, 2015-02-17 22:20 -0800:
> Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/VwQUpEOwWyrZSiXO6nirX1U4io0>
> 
> > Is there still no public Web-based interface to view details of media-type

That seems like a reasonable position to take, though I can't say I
personally agree with it. Is there some consensus about that position
documented somewhere (and the rationale)?

IMHO the goal of getting things registered isn't hindered much by having
greater transparency and more opportunities for wider review and scrutiny.

But also IMHO it is actually probably hindered some by the fact that
submitters don't have any means to check themselves on the status of their
applications, or to point others at the pending application so they examine
the details, or to confirm that somebody else hasn't already submitted an
application for the same media type that's still pending, etc.

>     http://www.iana.org/assignments/provisional-standard-media-types/provisional-standard-media-types.xhtml

Thanks for the heads-up about that. That would be an improvement, I think.

Is there a discussion archived somewhere about how the decision was arrived
at to only expose the names but not the details?

> media types waiting for IANA action, if that's what you're interesting in

I was actually specifically interested in finding out the details for an
application for the `application/vnd.citationstyles.style+xml` media type,
which per https://github.com/validator/validator/issues/30#issuecomment-74062123
I believe were submitted a few days ago.

  ーMike

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:04:49 -0800 (PST)

> documented somewhere (and the rationale)?

Well, I can't say for sure that the issue of making such material public was
never suggested - there have been thousands of messages on many different
lists, many F2F meetings, lunch discussions, phone calls, and who knows what
else over the past 20 years or so. But I'm pretty sure there was never any
concrete proposal made to do it. And it should be obvious that documenting
decisions on proposals that nobody made is an absurdity.

> greater transparency and more opportunities for wider review and scrutiny.

Actually, there is evidence that says it does. When the process was originally
designed public review was required for all registrations. And registration
rates were low to nonexistent. Things improved considerably once the
requirement was removed.

> application for the same media type that's still pending, etc.

Checking on the status of your own submissions is another matter entirely. I
think that would be a fine thing, but that's a matter for IANA, as it would
have to be integrated into their ticket system.

> at to only expose the names but not the details?

What is now RFC 6838 was discussed at length on the apps area list back in
2012. I have no idea if that particular issue ever came up though.

> I believe were submitted a few days ago.

The review request was sent to me yesterday and completed the same day. That's
all I can say.

				Ned

---

From: "Michael[tm] Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:51:34 +0900

Hi Ned,

Ned Freed <[email-masked]>, 2015-02-17 23:04 -0800:
> Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/w1sWHeTG8sFEt3aPi9ollwX5QcA>

Fair enough. I don't personally feel strongly enough about it being a real
problem that I care to take time to write a proposal for changing anything.

> designed public review was required for all registrations.

Understood but I wasn't suggesting to have a requirement for public review
of pending applications. I was just suggesting to have the information be
made publicly available, with no new requirements on submitters themselves.

> And registration rates were low to nonexistent. Things improved
> considerably once the requirement was removed.

OK but another data point I can provide to counter that is that as somebody
who has actually taken time to submit applications in the past, I personally
found the current process to pretty unfriendly and I found the lack of
ability to check on the status of my own applications to be a disincentive.
But I suppose others might see it differently.

> have to be integrated into their ticket system.

OK. Well I think that'd be an improvement at least. I don't feel strongly
enough about it to be commit to writing a proposal and taking through the
rounds on my own, but if it it's just a logistical change that can be
deployed without needing an RFC or something to be created, I'd otherwise
be happy to put time into helping make it happen.

> The review request was sent to me yesterday and completed the same day. That's

OK, that's good to know at leastーthanks

  ーMike