Subject: Re: [media-types] WG: Still need an editor....

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 08:30:15 -0800

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:20 PM Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I have started working on such a draft, mostly on getting up to speed
> with the newest version of xml2rfc and related tooling.
>
> When I started looking for status, update relationships, and references
> that I might have to include, I found
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6838#section-4.2.7, which says:
>
> 4.2.7.  Additional Top-Level Types
>
>     In some cases, a new media type may not "fit" under any currently
>     defined top-level type names.  Such cases are expected to be quite
>     rare.  However, if such a case does arise, a new type name can be
>     defined to accommodate it.  Definition of a new top-level type name
>     MUST be done via a Standards Track RFC; no other mechanism can be
>     used to define additional type names.
>
> If you compare this text with what Harald and I wrote above and below,
> there's really not much (if indeed anything) that isn't already said.
>
> So before I continue working on this draft (which I can do this
> weekend), I really want to make sure that we need such a draft.
>

Hi Martin, thanks for taking this up.

RFC 6838 Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.7 are mushy in that the former says we
should use "application" as the top-level type for anything that doesn't
clearly fit into some other top-level type, while the latter says you can
also make new top-level types in the rare case that it's necessary.  When
the "haptics" application appeared, the community had that discussion, and
it was noted that there's little guidance (only what you cited) about when
one should do one or the other.  The only other example is RFC 8081, where
a top-level type was indeed registered.

What I think we were hoping for is an update to RFC 6838 that provides some
consensus guidance about (a) when it's appropriate to make a new top-level
type versus using "application" (and/or maybe some examples of when doing
so is not appropriate); and (b) what a document declaring a new top-level
type should be required to contain.  It's fine to use RFC 8081 as a model
if people think that worked out well, or well enough to serve as a basis
for something going forward.

-MSK

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:04:29 +0900

Hello Murray, Harald, others,

For what it's worth, I managed to create and submit a first version of 
the draft we spoke about. Below are the details. The draft is currently 
just a collection of ideas and references to history. Any comments 
appreciated!

Regards,   Martin.

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.

         Title           : Guidelines for the Definition of New Top 
Level Media Types
         Author          : Martin J. Dürst
	Filename        : draft-duerst-mediaman-toplevel-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2022-03-06

Abstract:
    The goal of this document is to identify best practices for defining
    new top-level media types.  It updates RFC 6838 [RFC6838], when
    approved.  Comments and discussion about this document should be
    directed to [email-masked], the mailing list of the Media Type
    Maintenance (mediaman) WG.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duerst-mediaman-toplevel/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-duerst-mediaman-toplevel-00.html

-- 
Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst
Department of Intelligent Information Technology
College of Science and Engineering
Aoyama Gakuin University
Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara
252-5258 Japan

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2022 13:50:29 +0100

Thank you Martin!

This is a great starting point.

Do you have a github repo for the draft where we should track things 
using issues, or do you manage it by yourself?

Harald

On 3/6/22 11:04, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> the draft we spoke about. Below are the details. The draft is 
> currently just a collection of ideas and references to history. Any 
> comments appreciated!
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:04:37 +0900

Hello Harald,

> using issues, or do you manage it by yourself?

At the moment, I'm managing it locally using subversion. I'm okay with 
moving to github, but I'd ideally do the move to github, the change to a 
WG draft, and the use of an 'official' IETF repository all in one go.

Regards,   Martin.