Hi Martin, Thanks for letting us know. Good luck getting through this busy season!
Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 10, 2025, at 4:39 PM, Martin J. Dürst <due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > > Hello Sandy, > > Many thanks for contacting me, and very sorry for not replying. I have > started looking into the issues, but have been held up by my day job, which > is currently extremely busy. I'll see what I can do. > > Regards, Martin. > > On 2025-01-11 03:51, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> Martin, >> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions below. >> Please let us know how we may resolve the items listed below. >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/sg >>> On Dec 23, 2024, at 11:07 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> >>> Martin, >>> >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>> >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] This document updates RFC 6838, which is part of BCP 13. >>> Please note that we have marked this RFC as being part of BCP 13 as well. >>> Please verify that this is correct (i.e., please verify that it should >>> not be part of another existing BCP and that a new BCP number is not >>> needed). >>> >>> For more info about BCP 13, see >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp13 >>> >>> In addition, a complete list of current BCPs is available here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Martin, we have removed "J." from the document header >>> (it remains in the authors' addresses section) to match what appears >>> in your published RFCs. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Does "wider community" refer to the IETF Community, as >>> these top-level types can only be introduced via Standards Action? Or, >>> does this mean the community interested in using the new top-level type? >>> Will this be clear to the reader? >>> >>> Original: >>> * The proposers of the new top-level type and the wider community >>> should be willing to commit to emitting and consuming the new top- >>> level type in environments that they control. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the following update. >>> Please let us know if this is acceptable. >>> >>> Original: >>> The first time an additional top-level type was defined was in RFC >>> 1437 [RFC1437], but this was an April Fools RFC, purely for >>> entertainment purposes. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> RFC 1437 [RFC1437] defined the first additional top-level type; however, >>> it was not registered because RFC 1437 is an April Fools RFC that was >>> published purely for entertainment purposes. >>> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] As draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics will be published at the >>> same time as this document, should this text be updated as follows? >>> >>> Original: >>> There is ongoing work on defining a new 'haptics' top-level type in >>> draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics [HAPTICS]. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> RFC 9695 [RFC9695] defines a new 'haptics' top-level type. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text and add an informative >>> reference for the wikipedia page to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_file_format? >>> >>> Original: >>> Wikipedia (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_file_format) >>> reports the unofficial use of a 'chemical' top-level type. This top- >>> level type was proposed by Peter Murray-Rust and Henry Rzepa at a >>> workshop at the First WWW conference in May 1994 CHEMIME [CHEMIME]. >>> It is in widespread use, but remains unregistered. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> The "Chemical file format" Wikipedia page [CHEMICAL] >>> reports the unofficial use of a 'chemical' top-level type. This top- >>> level type was proposed by Peter Murray-Rust and Henry Rzepa at a >>> workshop at the First WWW conference in May 1994 CHEMIME [CHEMIME]. >>> It is in widespread use, but remains unregistered. >>> >>> [CHEMICAL] Wikipedia, "Chemical file format", 19 July 2024, >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ >>> index.php?title=Chemical_file_format&oldid=1235421631>. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We have changed "They have" to "The defining >>> specifications", >>> as it's the document (as opposed to the registration) that will have the >>> IANA >>> Considerations and Security Considerations. Please review and let us know >>> if >>> updates are needed. >>> >>> Original (the first sentence is provided for context): >>> Registrations of new top-level types have to provide the name of the >>> top-level type, the defining specification (RFC, or the respective >>> draft during the approval process), and, if applicable, some >>> comments. They have to contain a "IANA Considerations" section >>> requesting addition to the registry of top-level media types, and >>> have to document security considerations for the top-level types they >>> register. >>> >>> Current: >>> The defining specifications have to contain an "IANA >>> Considerations" section requesting addition to the registry of top- >>> level media types and document security considerations for the top- >>> level types they register. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 8) <!-- [rfced] The following text has been removed as directives to IANA. >>> We note that IANA has created a new registry for Top-Level Media Types (see >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/top-level-media-types/top-level-media-types.xhtml) >>> and have added a pointer to the Top-Level Media Types from the Media >>> Types registry. >>> >>> This should be done by expanding the "Registries included below" >>> section >>> of https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml >>> (assuming this is compatible with IANA infrastructure; if not, then >>> there should be at least a pointer from that page to this new >>> registry). >>> >>> Note that IANA provided this information related to the registry: >>> NOTE: the first paragraph of Section 4.2 will have to be adjusted. >>> For architectural reasons related to iana.org/protocols, we were >>> unable to place the new Top-Level Media Types registry at >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types. >>> >>> Please let us know if any corrections are needed. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Currently, instances of "[pointer to be added by IANA]" >>> in table 1 have been updated to match the text that appears in the >>> IANA registry. However, we are experimenting with how these should be >>> linked as using <eref> to link to the registries causes the table to >>> extend beyond the 69-character limit in the text output, and forcing a >>> break within <eref> causes the links to break. >>> >>> Notes: >>> - The links go to the registry group, rather than individual registries. >>> Per IANA, they prefer that links be to the registry group (see "Other >>> considerations" on https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration for >>> more details). >>> >>> - We will continue to seek a solution while you review the other updates >>> to the RFC. Please let us know if you have a suggestion regarding how >>> the table could be updated. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 10) <!-- [rfced] To what does "as such" refer? Is there text missing? >>> >>> Original: >>> 5. Security Considerations >>> >>> This document as such is not expected to introduce any security >>> issues. >>> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>> online >>> Style Guide >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >>> >>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >>> still be reviewed as a best practice. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> On Dec 23, 2024, at 10:58 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2024/12/23 >>> >>> RFC Author(s): >>> -------------- >>> >>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>> >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>> >>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>> your approval. >>> >>> Planning your review >>> --------------------- >>> >>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>> >>> * RFC Editor questions >>> >>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>> follows: >>> >>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>> >>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>> >>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>> >>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>> >>> * Content >>> >>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>> - contact information >>> - references >>> >>> * Copyright notices and legends >>> >>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>> >>> * Semantic markup >>> >>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>> >>> * Formatted output >>> >>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>> >>> >>> Submitting changes >>> ------------------ >>> >>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >>> include: >>> >>> * your coauthors >>> >>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >>> >>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>> >>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>> list: >>> >>> * More info: >>> >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>> >>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>> >>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>> >>> An update to the provided XML file >>> — OR — >>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>> >>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>> >>> OLD: >>> old text >>> >>> NEW: >>> new text >>> >>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>> >>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >>> >>> >>> Approving for publication >>> -------------------------- >>> >>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>> >>> >>> Files >>> ----- >>> >>> The files are available here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9694 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9694 (draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-06) >>> >>> Title : Guidelines for the Definition of New Top-Level Media >>> Types >>> Author(s) : M. Dürst >>> WG Chair(s) : Harald T. Alvestrand >>> Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Orie Steele >>> >>> > > -- > 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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
