Subject: [apps-discuss] text/nfo draft-01 to -02 feedback, was Re: Volunteer needed for media type ISE review

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:52:42 -0700

Hello Tom et. al.:

Thank you for the comments. I incorporated most of this feedback without 
issue, except for the final two points (and a clarification about 
security considerations):

On 9/29/2015 4:29 AM, t.petch wrote:
> Sean
>
> I think that you will need more Security Considerations to make this
> acceptable.  Looking at that section for other Media Types, they mostly
> say something about the lack of confidentiality, integrity and so on,
> while this I-D explicitly mentions the ambiguity of some code points
> which to me says 'easy phishing'.

On this--I added more stuff. The only thing I might add in a future 
draft is that if you go with the modern Microsoft code page mapping at 
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/goglobal/cc305156>, then the mapping is in 
fact bijective with Unicode.

> s.3.7  this template corresponds to RFC2978 but I note that IANA has a
> few extra fields.    Doubtless the Expert Reviewer will ask for them if
> needed.

I looked through the IANA registries (note that there are two: the 
"charsets" registry and the "character sets" registry), and I did not 
see the extra fields. Can you point them out?

> 3.5 Better to be explicit that it is the 'Media Types' registry that is
> the intended destination.

I did not modify the IANA Considerations text, not so much because I 
disagree, but because I have at least two other Internet-Drafts:
draft-seantek-windows-image
draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown

in which the same boilerplate directives are stated, without saying 
"...in the Standards tree of the Media Types registry [CITE NEEDED?] 
using the application provided...". If I change this draft, it is only 
fair that I change the other drafts. Note that the text-markdown draft 
is allllmoooosssttt ttthhheerrreee to AUTH48.

So this is a general referendum on the topic. In a published document is 
it necessary to state:
1. "of the Media Types registry"
2. "[CITE]" to the Media Types registry
3. "in the [Standards] tree" (let's face it, it's almost always going to 
be in the Standards tree, otherwise why bother; it's also implicit in 
the registration template)

in the IANA Considerations?

My view is that this statement is sufficient:
IANA is asked to register the media type X/Y using the application 
provided in Section Z of this document.

Less is more.

Sean

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:19:27 +0100

On 05/10/2015 01:52, Sean Leonard wrote:
> So this is a general referendum on the topic. In a published document is it
> necessary to state:
> 3. "in the [Standards] tree" (let's face it, it's almost always going to be in
> the Standards tree, otherwise why bother; it's also implicit in the registration
> template)
>
> IANA is asked to register the media type X/Y using the application provided in
> Section Z of this document.
>
> Less is more.

FWIW, based on my experience of reviewing non-media-type registration requests, 
I would say:

1. & 3.  Not if the intent is clear from the template.

2. I think the relevant registration procedure document should be cited 
(normatively) somewhere that is close to the registration request.  (e.g. add 
the citation [xxx] to a statement of the form you suggest above.

#g
--

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:10:10 +0900

> "charsets" registry and the "character sets" registry),

Can you say what you are referring to here? As far as I know, there is 
only one such registry. And as an expert reviewer for that registry, I 
guess I should know :-(.

> in the IANA Considerations?

In the published document, the "please register" phrase will be replaced 
by something saying that IANA registered it, or so I think.

> provided in Section Z of this document.

If it turns out to not be sufficient, IANA will tell you when they 
review the document. If a document is close to AUTH48, then it most 
probably already has passed that review.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:00:54 -0700

> only one such registry. And as an expert reviewer for that registry, I 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-sets.xml

http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-reg/charset-reg.xhtml

See:
http://www.iana.org/protocols#index_C

Sean

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:40:27 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sean Leonard" <[email-masked]>; "t.petch"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:10 AM
> only one such registry. And as an expert reviewer for that registry, I

charsets is for those not defined in RFC and so not applicable here

My other comment related to the MIBenum - I see now that these are
assigned by IANA.

Tom Petch

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 15:33:37 +0900

> charsets is for those not defined in RFC and so not applicable here

Yes indeed. The registry is at 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-sets.xml. The 
page at http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-reg/charset-reg.xhtml 
isn't a registry, just a list of pointers to registration documents. The 
text on the page explains this. In both cases, the page heading uses the 
term "Character Set", not "Charset" (I wish it were otherwise, but 
that's a separate issue.)

> My other comment related to the MIBenum - I see now that these are

They can be proposed by the submitter, but indeed they are assigned by IANA.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 01:40:47 -0700

On 10/5/2015 11:33 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> isn't a registry, just a list of pointers to registration documents. 
> The text on the page explains this. In both cases, the page heading 
> uses the term "Character Set", not "Charset" (I wish it were 
> otherwise, but that's a separate issue.)

Uh, if the text on the page explains this, it is awfully elliptical:

True, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-reg/charset-reg.xhtml> 
notes that "The following is the ***list*** of Character Set 
Registrations not defined in RFCs:"

But:
• It also says "Registration Procedure(s)".
• The title is "Character Set Registrations".
• The URL is 
<http://www.iana.org/***assignments***/charset-***reg***/charset-***reg***.xhtml>, 
three keywords that would imply a registry.
• The stylesheet of the page is <link rel="stylesheet" 
href="../_support/iana-registry.css 
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/_support/iana-registry.css>" 
type="text/css" /> -- implying a registry.
• Both pages are listed with equal weight in 
<http://www.iana.org/protocols>, which is titled "Protocol Registries". 
There is no indication on that page that some documents are not actually 
registries.

Regards,

Sean