Hi Martin, Thanks Martin, I am definitely enjoying Bangkok. I hope you are finding some relief after your busy season!
We have updated the document so your name appears as it was in the Internet-Draft. With this update, we believe you approve the RFC for publication, so we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page. We will continue with publication shortly. Note that the 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 Diffs highlighting the most recent update only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) 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) Thanks Martin! RFC Editor/sg > On Mar 16, 2025, at 3:44 AM, Martin J. Dürst <due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > > Hello Sandy, > > Really sorry for the repeated delay. I hope you have a very productive and > nice time in Bangkok (if you are there) or elsewhere! > > I have read the PDF version from front to back, and see no problems. However, > I have one "last wish". I earlier told you that I'd be fine with keeping my > name without middle initial, to align with the RFCs where I was author > previously. However, when I read the PDF version, I suddenly realized that > the name wouldn't be the same anyway: In all the previous RFCs, it was > "Martin Duerst", now it would be "Martin Dürst". Once I realized that, I got > to the conclusion that in that case, we can make it "Martin J. Dürst" as > well, with would align with my other publication. > > I'm sorry about this very late change of opinion. > > Regards, Martin. > > On 2025-03-12 01:16, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> Thank you for your review. We agree with your suggestions and have updated >> the document accordingly. Please review and let us know if any additional >> updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. >> The 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 >> Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) >> AUTH48 diff: >> 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) >> We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process. >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/sg >>> On Mar 10, 2025, at 10:22 PM, Martin J. Dürst <due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Sandy, >>> >>> Apologies for the delay in answering you. I think we are very close to >>> done, but please see two issues below. >>> >>> On 2025-03-05 09:56, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> Apologies for the oversight. The document has been updated and is >>>> available for review 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 >>>> Diffs of the most recent updates only: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-lastdiff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9694-lastrfcdiff.html (side by >>>> side) >>>> 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) >>>> Regarding the change with the subject "split up long sentence into three >>>> shorter sentences” >>>> <https://github.com/ietf-wg-mediaman/toplevel/commit/b0503dd0f3932d52d258d7a9d2355c09072542dd>, >>>> is the last sentence part of the example? >>> >>> The last sentence isn't part of the example, it's another example. >>> >>>> Perhaps it should be connected to the second sentence? >>>> Current: >>>> For example, 'x- >>>> scheme-handler/http' should be changed to something like >>>> 'application/scheme-handler; scheme=http'. The type 'inode/ >>>> directory' should be changed to 'multipart/inode-directory' or >>>> 'application/inode-directory. >>>> Perhaps: >>>> For example, 'x- >>>> scheme-handler/http' should be changed to something like >>>> 'application/scheme-handler; scheme=http’, and the type 'inode/ >>>> directory' should be changed to 'multipart/inode-directory' or >>>> 'application/inode-directory. >>> >>> What about: >>> >>> As an example, 'x-scheme-handler/http' should be changed to >>> something like 'application/scheme-handler; scheme=http’. >>> As another example, the type 'inode/directory' should be >>> changed to 'multipart/inode-directory' or >>> 'application/inode-directory. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> A second issue: Section 4.2, Initialization of the Registry of Top-Level >>> Media Types, mentions pointers to this registry from IANA pages both in the >>> first and in the last paragraph. In the last paragraph, this is about the >>> application form for registering media (sub)types. If that's the way IANA >>> prefers it, or the way the RFC Editor usually does this, that's perfectly >>> fine. The alternative would be to move the contents of the last paragraph >>> in that section to the first paragraph to have all the talk about these >>> pointers in one location. This is just a thought, I'm fine if you ignore it. >>> >>> Regards, Martin. >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> RFC Editor/sg >>>>> On Mar 4, 2025, at 2:18 PM, Martin J. Dürst <due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Sandy, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry that I forgot to say this in my last mail, but please add a >>>>> reference for RDF. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Martin. >>>>> >>>>> On 2025-03-04 16:54, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >>>>>> Hello Sandy, >>>>>> Many thanks for your work! I have looked at the diffs below. It looks to >>>>>> me as if the comments in my mail were applied to the documents, but the >>>>>> changes that I made in the XML I sent, and which are listed as changes >>>>>> at >>>>>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-mediaman/toplevel/commits/main/draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel.xml, >>>>>> have not been integrated. >>>>>> Can you please cross-check? >>>>>> Regards, Martin. >>>>>> On 2025-03-04 06:03, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > > -- > 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
