<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.17 (Ruby 3.3.1) -->
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-01" category="std" consensus="true" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.21.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Community Registrations">Allowing Community Registrations in the Standards Tree</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-01"/>
    <author initials="M." surname="Nottingham" fullname="Mark Nottingham">
      <organization/>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <postalLine>Prahran</postalLine>
          <postalLine>Australia</postalLine>
        </postal>
        <email>mnot@mnot.net</email>
        <uri>https://www.mnot.net/</uri>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 28?>

<t>Over time, it has become clear that there are media types which have the character of belonging in the standards tree (because they are not associated with any one vendor or person), but are not published by a standards body. This draft suggests an update to <xref target="RFC6838"/> to allow their registration.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 32?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC6838"/> only allows registrations in the standards tree from the IETF and other "recognized standards-related organizations."</t>
      <t>Over time, it has become clear that there are media types which have the character of belonging in the standards tree (because they are not associated with any one vendor or person), but are not published by a standards body.</t>
      <t>To address this shortcoming, <xref target="tree"/> suggests a drop-in replacement for <xref section="3.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC6838"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="notational-conventions">
        <name>Notational Conventions</name>
        <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
        <?line -18?>

</section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="tree">
      <name>Standards Tree</name>
      <t>The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet community. Registrations in the standards tree <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be either:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
          <t>in the case of registrations associated with IETF specifications, approved directly by the IESG, or</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>registered by a recognized standards-related organization using the "Specification Required" IANA registration policy <xref target="RFC5226"/> (which implies Expert Review), or</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>approved by the Designated Expert(s) as identifying a "community format", as described in <xref target="community"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ol>
      <t>The first procedure is used for registrations from IETF Consensus documents, or in rare cases when registering a grandfathered (see Appendix A) and/or otherwise incomplete registration is in the interest of the Internet community. The registration proposal <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be published as an RFC. When the registration RFC is in the IETF stream, it must have IETF Consensus, which can be attained with a status of Standards Track, BCP, Informational, or Experimental. Registrations published in non-IETF RFC streams are also allowed and require IESG approval. A registration can be either in a stand-alone "registration only" RFC or incorporated into a more general specification of some sort.</t>
      <t>In the second case, the IESG makes a one-time decision on whether the registration submitter represents a recognized standards-related organization; after that, a Media Types Reviewer (Designated Expert or a group of Designated Experts) performs the Expert Review as specified in this document. Subsequent submissions from the same source do not involve the IESG. The format <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be described by a formal standards specification produced by the submitting standards- related organization.</t>
      <t>The third case is described in <xref target="community"/>.</t>
      <t>Media types in the standards tree <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> have faceted names, unless they are grandfathered in using the process described in Appendix A.</t>
      <t>The "owner" of a media type registered in the standards tree is assumed to be the standards-related organization itself. Modification or alteration of the specification uses the same level of processing (e.g., a registration submitted on Standards Track can be revised in another Standards Track RFC, but cannot be revised in an Informational RFC) required for the initial registration.</t>
      <t>Standards-tree registrations from recognized standards-related organizations are submitted directly to the IANA, where they will undergo Expert Review <xref target="RFC5226"/> prior to approval. In this case, the Expert Reviewer(s) will, among other things, ensure that the required specification provides adequate documentation.</t>
      <section anchor="community">
        <name>Community Formats in the Standards Tree</name>
        <t>Some formats are interoperable (i.e., they are supported by more than one implementation), but their specifications are not published by a recognized standards-related organization. To accommodate these cases, the Designated Expert(s) are empowered to approve registrations in the standards tree that meet the following criteria:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>There is a well-defined specification for the format</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>That specification is not tied to or heavily associated with one implementation</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The specification is freely available at a stable location</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>There are multiple interoperable implementations of the specification, or they are likely to emerge</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The requested name is appropriate to the use case, and not so generic that it may be considered 'squatting'</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>There is no conflict with IETF work or work at other recognised SDOs (present or future)</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>There is evidence of broad adoption</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The Designated Expert(s) have discretion in applying these criteria; in rare cases, they might judge it best to register an entry that fails one or more.</t>
        <t>Note that such registrations still go through preliminary community review (Section 5.1), and decisions can be appealed (Section 5.3).</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This draft introduces no new instructions for IANA.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This draft does not introduce new security issues. Seriously.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC6838">
        <front>
          <title>Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures</title>
          <author fullname="N. Freed" initials="N." surname="Freed"/>
          <author fullname="J. Klensin" initials="J." surname="Klensin"/>
          <author fullname="T. Hansen" initials="T." surname="Hansen"/>
          <date month="January" year="2013"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines procedures for the specification and registration of media types for use in HTTP, MIME, and other Internet protocols. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="13"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6838"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6838"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC2119">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
          <date month="March" year="1997"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8174">
        <front>
          <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
          <date month="May" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5226">
        <front>
          <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
          <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
          <author fullname="H. Alvestrand" initials="H." surname="Alvestrand"/>
          <date month="May" year="2008"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations across all implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
            <t>In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.</t>
            <t>This document obsoletes RFC 2434. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5226"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5226"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <?line 113?>



  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
