Subject: [media-types] Planning for IETF 112: Agenda?

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:56:26 +0200

I've started trying to figure out an agenda for IETF 112.

One critical question that will be asked is: Do we have the engagemente 
needed to carry out our charter?

I've put together a "work items with assigned shepherds" document here:

https://github.com/alvestrand/mediaman/blob/main/work-items.md

As you can see, it's rather empty on the "assignments" front.

The very first item on our charter (and a blocking item for the -haptics 
document) is "guidelines for top level types". As part of the IETF 112 
discussion, I'll be asking:

- Do we need it?

- What form should it take? (Web page, registry intro paragraph, RFC for 
BCP 13 addition, other?)

- Who's willing to hold the pen on it?

This will be the first item on our agenda.

Second will be the question of WG adoption of 
draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics.

Suggestions for other agenda items welcome!

Harald

---

From: Paul Libbrecht <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:11:34 +0200

Do I understand properly, that modifications of the template as follows:

- remove Macintosh 4-characters
- add UTI and windows clipboard names

Are included in the last two sections?
Should this be noted?

Thanks in advance.

Paul

On 8 Oct 2021, at 12:56, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> One critical question that will be asked is: Do we have the 
> engagemente needed to carry out our charter?
>
> The very first item on our charter (and a blocking item for the 
> -haptics document) is "guidelines for top level types". As part of the 
> IETF 112 discussion, I'll be asking:
>
> - Do we need it?
>
> - What form should it take? (Web page, registry intro paragraph, RFC 
> for BCP 13 addition, other?)
>
> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:28:34 +0200

On 10/8/21 1:11 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>   * remove Macintosh 4-characters
>   * add UTI and windows clipboard names
>
Yes, that's stuff that belongs under "review the registration procedures 
and template".

We might want to start a document on "interesting" ideas for 
registration procedure revisions, to keep track.

(Might be easiest to do this as a github-hosted markdown document, since 
it's a "scratchpad" - actual revision would involve opening up the 
registration RFC.)

---

From: Manu Sporny <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 21:04:43 -0600

> As you can see, it's rather empty on the "assignments" front.

wrt. draft-w3cidwg-media-types-with-multiple-suffixes

You can probably safely include the W3C Decentralized Identifiers WG and 
W3C Verifiable Credentials WG as "engaged" as they are waiting on 
guidance from mediaman to register their mediatypes.

I'm willing to take the pen on the document (it's "done" in that the 
current text seems to be acceptable to most and we were waiting on 
broader feedback to confirm that theory). I can also ask Amy Guy if 
she's willing to continue editing that document as well.

Is there any other input that you need at this point?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Our Verifiable Credential Deployments
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/case-studies

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 15:55:27 +0900

Hello Manu,

> guidance from mediaman to register their mediatypes.

I may be misunderstanding you, but that's not what the IETF means by 
"engaged". Engaged would mean active participation in the WG, reviewing 
and commenting on other drafts, and so on.

> she's willing to continue editing that document as well.

That's definitely good to know, and will be appreciated.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 09:26:01 +0200

Thank you!

Indeed, as Martin says, "engaged in the IETF" is a property of people, 
not organizations - organizations are important in order to answer the 
question of "will this effort actually make people change what they're 
doing", but the work in the IETF is always done by people.

I've noted that you're volunteering to edit draft-w3cidwg, and will add 
the question of adopting this as a WG document to the agenda.

See you at IETF 112!

On 10/9/21 5:04 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> You can probably safely include the W3C Decentralized Identifiers WG 
> and W3C Verifiable Credentials WG as "engaged" as they are waiting on

---

From: Manu Sporny <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 20:04:47 -0400

On 10/9/21 2:55 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> "engaged". Engaged would mean active participation in the WG, reviewing and
> commenting on other drafts, and so on.

Yes, apologies, I should've been more precise.

What I meant was that I can direct individual implementers from the W3C
Decentralized Identifiers WG and W3C Verifiable Credentials WG to actively
review and comment on draft-w3cdidwg-media-types-with-multiple-suffixes wrt.
their implementations.

There are multiple independent implementers that are deploying media types
like: application/did+ld+json and plan to define types like:
application/vc+ld+json, and we were not able to register those media types
until something was done with that draft; so we've got at least two
communities with individuals who are motivated to move that particular
document forward.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/