(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
The document is seeking BCP status, since it defines media type registration
procedures. It is replacing RFC4288 which also has BCP status.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document defines procedures for the specification and
registration of media types for use in HTTP, MIME and other Internet
protocols.
Working Group Summary
Nothing of note. The document was developed by seasoned experts
in media types, and was preceded by significant discussion. The
process has been smooth.
Document Quality
The document updates media type registration procedures based on
experience since the publication of RFC4288. The procedures created
there and in its antecedent have been around for a long time; this
document merely refines them.
Personnel
Murray Kucherawy is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
I have reviewed the document alongside RFC4288 and observed the discussion
on the apps-discuss mailing list. I have no concerns.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None. It received almost entirely supportive comments on apps-discuss over
the past few months.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No such reviews are required for this BCP.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
There are no such concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes; there are none.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
None.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
A comfortable number of supporters have posted to apps-discuss in favour of
moving this document forward, with mostly reasonable questions and suggestions
that have been answered by the authors. The consensus is solid.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
There are no appeal threats.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
IDnits complained about things like a reference to RFC2048 (which is obsolete)
but this is used correctly to give extended history of the subject matter.
No other concerns were identified.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews are required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset,
and it will reach the IESG shortly after this one does.
There is also a normative reference to draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs
that is being processed by appsawg, but is not ready for IESG evaluation.
It is not expected to take long.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
No; all normative references other than the drafts named above are either
Standards Track or BCP.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
RFC4288 is obsoleted by this specification. This is called out in the
Abstract. An appendix further describes all the changes since RFC4288.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA Considerations section is brief but well-formed and consistent
with the remainder of the document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The new registry created by this document uses the same Designated Expert
as is currently used for media type registries. No new selection is needed.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
In addition to a thorough IDnits check, a BNF parser came up clean
for the small amount of ABNF this document uses.