A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences
draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-02-15
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-13
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-02-06
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2017-01-09
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-01-09
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2017-01-05
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-01-04
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-01-04
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-01-04
|
03 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-01-04
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-12-31
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-12-31
|
03 | Erik Wilde | New version available: draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-03.txt |
2016-12-31
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-31
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Erik Wilde" |
2016-12-31
|
03 | Erik Wilde | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-30
|
02 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-12-22
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-12-15
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-12-15
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Waiting for Expert Review from Ned Freed till the end of December 2016. |
2016-12-15
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-15
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-12-14
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-12-14
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-12-14
|
02 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-12-14
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-14
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -4: Would it make sense to add something like "..., or any IESG designated successor." to the contact? The ART merger has recently … [Ballot comment] -4: Would it make sense to add something like "..., or any IESG designated successor." to the contact? The ART merger has recently shown that even area WG mailing lists do not live forever. -5: I share Mirja's curiosity about why the security considerations from 7464 were copied rather than just referenced. |
2016-12-14
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-12-14
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-12-13
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-12-13
|
02 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-12-13
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-12-13
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-12
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-12-12
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Al Morton. |
2016-12-12
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-12-12
|
02 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Is it really needed to copy the whole security considerations section of RFC7464 in this doc? And why was this not registered within … |
2016-12-12
|
02 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-11
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-12-11
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | (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? … (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? Informational. This type has been used for previous registrations of similar media type structured suffixes ([RFC6389]). The title page indicates that this is Informational. (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 and registers the “+json-seq” media type structured suffix in the IANA “Structured Syntax Suffix” registry based on the guidelines in RFC6838. GeoJSON Text Sequences (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence/) is dependent on this registration - https://github.com/geojson/geojson-text-sequences/issues/19. Working Group Summary The registration was reviewed on [art] and [geojson]. There was no controversy (or need for formal WG adoption) since this is a simple registration. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? There are no existing implementations. Brian Raymor is the Document Shepherd. Alexey Melnikov 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. The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and is confident that the updated document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. This is a simple registration of a media type structured suffix. (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. (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? It represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals. (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.) No. (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. No ID nits were identified. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not relevant. (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? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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 interested community considers it unnecessary. No. (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 Document Shepherd confirms that this document follows the RFC6838 registration process and includes the completed template. (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. Not relevant. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not relevant. |
2016-12-10
|
02 | Peter Yee | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. |
2016-12-10
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued |
2016-12-10
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-10
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-10
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-12-10
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Notification list changed to "Brian Raymor" <brian.raymor@microsoft.com> |
2016-12-10
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Document shepherd changed to Brian Raymor |
2016-12-09
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-12-09
|
02 | Erik Wilde | New version available: draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-02.txt |
2016-12-09
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-09
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Erik Wilde" |
2016-12-09
|
02 | Erik Wilde | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-08
|
01 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-12-02
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | The document is saying "Experimental" by mistake. The editor agreed to update it to say "Informational" after IETF LC is over. |
2016-12-01
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2016-12-01
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2016-12-01
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Warren Kumari. |
2016-11-30
|
01 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-30
|
01 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Structured Syntax Suffix Registry located at: a single, new registration is to be made as follows: Name: JSON Text Sequence +suffix: +json-seq References: [ RFC 7464 ] Encoding considerations: See [ RFC 7464 ] Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +json-seq SHOULD be as specified for "application/json-seq". (At publication of this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for "application/json-seq".) The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+json-seq" SHOULD be processed as follows: For cases defined in +json-seq, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +json-seq rules, then process as specified in +json-seq. For cases defined in +json-seq, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +json-seq rules, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+json-seq". For cases not defined in +json-seq, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+json-seq". Interoperability considerations: n/a Security considerations: See [ RFC7464 ] Contact: Applications and Real-Time Area Working Group (art@ietf.org) Author/Change controller: The Applications and Real-Time Area Working Group. IESG has change control over this registration. Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-11-29
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Intended Status changed to Informational from Proposed Standard |
2016-11-28
|
01 | Erik Wilde | New version available: draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-01.txt |
2016-11-28
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-28
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Erik Wilde" |
2016-11-28
|
01 | Erik Wilde | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-23
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
2016-11-23
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
2016-11-20
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-15 |
2016-11-17
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2016-11-17
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2016-11-11
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2016-11-11
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A Media … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-12-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Structured Syntax Suffixes for media types allow other media types to build on them and make it explicit that they are built on an existing media type as their foundation. This specification defines and registers "json-seq" as a structured syntax suffix for JSON Text Sequences. Note to Readers This draft should be discussed on the art mailing list [1]. Online access to all versions and files is available on github [2]. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call was requested |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-11-10
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-11-02
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Assigned to Applications and Real-Time Area |
2016-11-02
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov |
2016-11-02
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-11-02
|
00 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-json-seq-suffix/ |
2016-11-02
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-11-02
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-11-02
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2016-09-23
|
00 | (System) | This document now replaces draft-json-seq-suffix instead of None |
2016-09-23
|
00 | Erik Wilde | New version approved |
2016-09-23
|
00 | Erik Wilde | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-23
|
00 | Erik Wilde | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: "Erik Wilde" |
2016-09-23
|
00 | Erik Wilde | New version available: draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-00.txt |