Hi,
After a further thought: the current proposed text is not ideal, but it
is better to keep it as is. I don't think removing references is any better.
Best Regards,
Alexey
On 21/05/2025 18:22, David Dong via RT wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Just a ping on this; thank you.
Please see below.
Best regards,
David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
On Wed May 07 13:50:30 2025, jasd...@arin.net wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Thank you for your review. Please see our comments below.
Regards,
Jasdip & Tom
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 9:44 AM
To: drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org <drafts-expert-review-
comm...@iana.org>
Cc: dar...@tavis.ca <dar...@tavis.ca>, regext@ietf.org
<regext@ietf.org>
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 -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
