Hi Martin, Thank you for your close review and for the updated XML. We have incorporated the document based on the replies below. The current files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694.html
AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please note the following: A) > One additional question: In section 2.3, the document mentions "RDF (Resource > Description Framework)". Does this need a citation, or can people look it up? [rfced] In looking at other RFCs that mention RDF, some include a reference and some don’t. We see a reference to the following in RFC 9290. Would you like to include an informative reference? [RDF] Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., and M. Lanthaler, "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax", W3C Recommendation, 25 February 2014, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/>. B) > It seems difficult or impossible to provide direct links from the table > entries in the RFC to the individual registries, both because IANA cannot > guarantee the stability of links to individual registries as well as because > these links would be too long. I propose that we don't use links at all. As > long as it is clear to IANA that they should provide links in their table > (which they already do) and the readers of the RFC have a pointer to > https://www.iana.org/assignments/top-level-media-types close before or after > the table, things should be fine. [rfced] We confirmed with IANA that individual registry links should not appear in the RFC. We left the registry names in the table, but we did not include direct links. We added links to the registries where they are first mentioned within the section. Please review and let us know if any changes are needed. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg On Feb 28, 2025, at 11:07 PM, Martin J. Dürst <due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > > Dear RFC Editors, > > First, I'm very sorry for the long delay in answering you. I should have more > time over the next days and weeks, so that we hopefully can complete this > soon. > > I have reviewed the diff at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-rfcdiff.html. > Most of the changes are okay, but some need additional tweaks. > > I'm attaching an updated xml file including these tweaks. These tweaks are > also visible on github as individual commits, please see > https://github.com/ietf-wg-mediaman/toplevel/commits/main/draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel.xml > (all commits are on March 1 (or February 28 in your location, depending on > where you are and how github deals with timezones)). > > One additional question: In section 2.3, the document mentions "RDF (Resource > Description Framework)". Does this need a citation, or can people look it up? > > The rest of this mail contains answers to your comments, in some cases with > new proposals for text. Except where mentioned, these new proposals are not > yet integrated into the attached xml. Please integrate them unless you see > problems, or tell me to integrate them. > > Regards, Martin. > > > On 2024-12-24 16:07, 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 >> --> > > Yes, I think this is correct. > >> 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. >> --> > > That should be okay. > > >> 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. >> --> > > "wider community" refers to the community that is using documents that would > fall under the new top-level type (if that top-level type is approved). I > think this will be clear to the reader. If you think it is not clear enough, > I propose to change "wider community" to "wider user community". > > >> 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. >> --> > > Your proposal looks fine to me. > > >> 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. >> --> > > Your edit points in the right direction. However, I think it would be good if > we expanded this as follows: > > RFC 9695 [RFC9695] defines a new 'haptics' top-level type. RFC 9695 and this > document were developed in parallel, and RFC 9695 was used to cross-check the > considerations and procedures defined in this document. > >> 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>. >> --> > > Your proposed change looks good to me. > > >> 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. >> --> > > In general, this looks good. However, I'd really want to keep the comma > before the "and", because otherwise, it's way too easy to read "document" as > a noun and get stuck. Also, we don't envision that many > new top-level registrations, so I think singular works better. > The resulting changes are in the attached xml file, please cross-check. > > >> 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. >> --> > > This should be fine. > >> 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. >> --> > > It seems difficult or impossible to provide direct links from the table > entries in the RFC to the individual registries, both because IANA cannot > guarantee the stability of links to individual registries as well as because > these links would be too long. I propose that we don't use links at all. As > long as it is clear to IANA that they should provide links in their table > (which they already do) and the readers of the RFC have a pointer to > https://www.iana.org/assignments/top-level-media-types close before or after > the table, things should be fine. > > >> 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. >> --> > > Most probably, this is easier to understand: > > This document itself 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<draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel.xml> -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
