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>
