Update to MIME regarding "charset" Parameter Handling in Textual Media Types
draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-04

[Ballot comment]
I'm a bit confused here, and would like to check how
much:-)

Old subtypes use ascii as a default but don't say that
explicitly and will not be changed by this RFC. New
subtypes SHOULD NOT define a default. So when I go look at
the registry do I need to compare the date of registration
vs. the date of this RFC to know what's what?

[Ballot discuss]
There are a few already registered types under text that did not happen to do either of the things listed in 3 (a) or (b), and are silent about their default character set. I believe the intent is that this document would leave those types with the default of US-ASCII they inherited from rfc2046 (based on the last sentence of the introduction). I think it would help avoid misunderstanding to note that explicitly.

[Ballot comment]

  Please consider the editorial issues raise in the Gen-ART Review by
  Vijay Gurbani on 27-Apr-2012.  The review can be found here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07401.html

[Ballot comment]
I struggled a bit with the escape clauses for the "SHOULD" statements, but I think I got it straight, and I support the publication of this document.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-03 and has
the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions which IANA needs to complete.

First, in the text subregistry of the Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/

the following text will be added above the registry:

"See [ RFC-to-be ] for information about 'charset' parameter handling
for text media types."

Second, in the Application for Media Type located at:

http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl

this new [ RFC-to-be ] will be added to the list of references at the
beginning of the application.

IANA understands that these are the only actions required upon approval
of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

Subject: Last Call:  (Update to MIME regarding Charset Parameter Handling in Textual Media Types) to Proposed Standard





The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group

WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:

- 'Update to MIME regarding Charset Parameter Handling in Textual Media

  Types'

  as a 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 2012-05-07. 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





  This document changes RFC 2046 rules regarding default charset

  parameter values for text/* media types to better align with common

  usage by existing clients and servers.



Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)



  Discussion of this draft should take place on the Apps Area Working

  Group mailing list (apps-discuss@ietf.org), which is archived at

  .









The file can be obtained via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset/



IESG discussion can be tracked via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset/ballot/





No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO writeup:

(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 Proposed Standard status.  The title page so
indicates.  It is updating a key part of RFC 2046, which is Standards Track.

(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 changes RFC 2046 rules regarding default charset
  parameter values for text/* media types to better align with common
  usage by existing clients and servers.

Working Group Summary

  This is part of a trio of related documents that had good support from
  within the working group.  Apart from this, the development and processing
  were not unusual.

Document Quality

  The document alters MIME character set defaults to match current
  practices.  The current media type registration designated expert
  (Ned Freed) has reviewed and agrees with the material in the document.

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 conducted a full review of the document.  It is brief and thus the
review is easy.  It is ready for IESG Evaluation.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

I have no concerns.

(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.

The media type designated expert is the key reviewer for this document,
and that review has been completed.  It has also been subjected to
a number of reviews in apps-discuss, and one of its co-authors is an
XML expert.

(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 concerns of this nature.

(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 WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(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 handful of active reviewers have expressed support for the draft.  There
has been no objection.

(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 appeals have been threatened.

(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.

Several nits about missing references were generated but they appear to be
in error.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The media type designated expert has reviewed the document and has
no objections.

(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?

The normative references are to things that are full standards, draft
standards, or BCPs.

(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.

There are no downward references.

(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.

Yes, it updates RFC 2046.  The abstract and the title page both so indicate.

(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 requests that IANA alter the registration template to refer
to this RFC when published, for the information of registrants.

(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.

No new registries are created by this document.

(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.

No such reviews are warranted for this document.