Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 22:52:43 -0700

Colleagues,

A gentle reminder that this WGLC is in effect, closing in a few days.  To
date there have been no comments or reviews on the WGLC at all.  It will be
hard for me to argue that consensus exists without at least a few reviews
on the record.

Please take a moment to review it and post comments in by the end of this
week.

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair and document shepherd

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>wrote:

> This note begins a Working Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes, ending on Friday, August 16.  Please
> provide reviews and comments on this list or privately to the authors as
> soon as possible.
>
> -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair and document shepherd

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:44:11 -0700

At 22:52 13-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>A gentle reminder that this WGLC is in effect, closing in a few 
>days.  To date there have been no comments or reviews on the WGLC at 
>all.  It will be hard for me to argue that

These are quick comments about draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-02

In Section 3:

   "However, developers of such media types are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to
    use this specification as a basis for their registration."

The sentence needs an editorial pass, i.e. it is RECOMMENDED.  I 
suggest dropping the "STRONGLY" instead of having to explain the uppercase.

The first paragraph of Section 1 and the first paragraph of Section 3 
could be merged instead of having "this specification  standardizes" repeated.

In Section 5:

   "Document authors SHOULD NOT use unregistered schemes.  Scheme authors
    SHOULD register their schemes."

I suggest turning the above two sentences into "it is RECOMMENDED to 
only use the schemes listed in the XPointer Scheme Registry" and add 
a pointer to how to register a scheme.

I suggest moving Section 9 to an appendix as it is non-normative.

The draft updates RFC 4289.  There isn't any explanation about what 
is being updated.  I suggest referencing 
draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-18 instead of discussing about RFC 2616 
and the HTTPbis drafts.

Regards,
-sm