Hi Alexey, Thank you for your review. Please see our comments below.
Regards, Jasdip & Tom From: Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 9:44 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [regext] Re: [IANA #1414868] expert review for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed (media-type-structured-suffix) On 02/05/2025 18:35, David Dong via RT wrote: Dear Alexey Melnikov, Darrel Miller (cc: regext WG), Following up on this; as the designated experts for the Structured Syntax Suffixes registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-09 for us? Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed/ The due date was March 28th. If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll make the registration at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix/ Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewer, we’ll act on the first response we receive. The suffix registration generally looks fine to me. One small thing: The registration template says: · Encoding Considerations: Same as "text/csv". If we look at at RFC 4180 that defines text/csv: Encoding considerations: As per section 4.1.1. of RFC 2046 [3], this media type uses CRLF to denote line breaks. However, implementors should be aware that some implementations may use other values. This is stricly speaking is not a compliant definition for this field, because valid values are "7bit", "8bit", "binary" and "framed". I think clarifying that this is "binary", because lines over 1000 octets are allowed by the format. [JS] Right. Since the IANA registration for the “+csv” suffix references RFC 7111 besides RFC 4180 and the “Encoding considerations” in section 5.1 of RFC 7111 [1] starts with the “CSV MIME entities consist of binary data [RFC6838].” sentence, we as authors would prefer to keep the “Same as "text/csv".” text as-is to let the implementors directly read the normative text from RFCs 4180 and 7111 for encoding considerations. Alternatively, to make it clearer, we could remove the RFC 4180 reference from the “References” in the IANA registration to point to encoding considerations (and the updated the text/csv media type registration) from RFC 7111 only. [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7111#page-9
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
