(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?
Because this was separated from media-type-regs, which is a BCP, this
was processed as a BCP. It is normatively referenced from that document
and includes text (Section 2) that needs to be considered when reading
media-type-regs with suffixes in mind. The GenART review during last call
pointed out that Informational is fine, and its target status should be adjusted
by the IESG according to its judgment.
(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:
A content media type name sometimes includes partitioned meta-
information distinguish by a Structured Syntax, to permit noting an
attribute of the media as a suffix to the name. This document
defines several Structured Syntax Suffixes for use with media type
registrations. In particular, it defines and registers the "+json",
"+ber", "+der", "+fastinfoset", "+wbxml" and "+zip" Structured Syntax
Suffixes, and updates the "+xml" Message Type Structured Syntax
Working Group Summary
This document was forked from draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs, which
is now in the RFC Editor queue (waiting on this one). This was done in plain view of the working
group and thus comes as no surprise, and the content had working group
consensus prior to the document being fissioned. There were no objections
to the separation action.
Review of the document post-separation was limited to a few reviewers.
There was some question as to the utility of media type suffixes in
general (see below), but consensus suggests we are past the point of that
question being an important one.
Media type suffixes are not a new concept. This document merely formalizes
their existence and establishes an IANA registry and update procedures to
track them. People involved in the process of creating this document
includes the media type registration Designated Expert. There are no
concerns about the absence of adequate review.
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
I reviewed this document and provided some feedback ranging from content
to formatting, but as it was removed from a document that was already
mostly finished, it required very little in terms of substantive revision.
I checked the IANA Considerations within it (which is the bulk of this
document) and found that they are well formed and clear.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
No additional special review is required.
(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
There was concern expressed in the working group by one person as to the
necessity or utility of what's being proposed here, as well as a couple
of other questions. See:
That person was not satisfied with the replies he received, but his was
the sole objection. Given that this is ultimately not a new proposal but
rather the formalization of an existing concept, and the other questions
received no support, I believe it is appropriate to proceed. If the IESG
feels the Working Group needs to revisit and answer these questions,
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There has been no IPR disclosure.
(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?
The antecedent to this document (draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs) has
broad consensus and support within the working group, and has already
received IESG approval. Since this document was split out, there has
been little discussion of it in particular, but those that have discussed it
have generally supported its advancement alongside the previous one.
(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 have been no such threats to date.
(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
The document appears to be nit-free.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has the support of the media type reviewer.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
All normative references are to existing documents, though four of them are
external to the IETF.
(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.
RFC4627 is a normative reference to an Informational document.
There are four normative references to documents external to the IETF.
(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.
This document updates RFC3023. The title page so indicates.
(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).
Nearly all of this document is effectively an IANA Considerations section.
It is, however, well-formed and complete. I have no concerns as to its
clarity or thoroughness.
(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 media type suffix registry is created in draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs
using Expert Review rules, as defined in that document. This document
makes no changes to those procedures.
(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.
There is no formal code in this document requiring such review.