Skip to main content

Updates to ECMAScript Media Types
draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-17

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-26
17 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Victor Kuarsingh Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
17 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2022-05-05
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2022-04-14
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2022-04-07
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2022-03-09
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2022-03-09
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2022-03-09
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2022-03-08
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2022-03-08
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2022-03-04
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2022-03-03
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2022-03-03
17 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2022-03-03
17 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2022-03-02
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2022-03-02
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2022-03-02
17 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2022-03-02
17 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2022-03-02
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2022-03-02
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2022-03-02
17 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2022-03-02
17 Francesca Palombini Ballot writeup was changed
2022-03-01
17 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-17.txt
2022-03-01
17 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2022-03-01
17 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2022-02-28
16 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-16.txt
2022-02-28
16 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2022-02-28
16 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2022-02-17
15 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-15.txt
2022-02-17
15 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2022-02-17
15 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2022-01-14
14 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-14.txt
2022-01-14
14 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2022-01-14
14 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2022-01-06
13 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2022-01-06
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2022-01-06
13 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2022-01-06
13 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2022-01-06
13 Francesca Palombini [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Mark Nottingham for his ART ART review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ZqGVqHzWML-S5t3ZD-0qEoZJUOw/.
2022-01-06
13 Francesca Palombini Ballot comment text updated for Francesca Palombini
2022-01-05
13 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
The MUST in Section 2 is kind of peculiar.  Is it a reminder to implementers today that they need to keep an eye …
[Ballot comment]
The MUST in Section 2 is kind of peculiar.  Is it a reminder to implementers today that they need to keep an eye out for possible updates in the future?  If so, I think it's unnecessary.  If something else is meant, then I'm quite confused.

In several of the subsections of Section 6.2, there are some errant punctuation characters hanging around.

This document is registering media subtypes starting with "x-" even though BCP 178 says not to do that.  If the working group intends to do this for historical reasons, I suggest including a sentence explaining that this is being done intentionally, perhaps under Appendix A of RFC 6838.  (See, for example, Section 6 of RFC 8894.)
2022-01-05
13 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-01-05
13 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Section 3

  This document does not define how fragment identifiers in resource
  identifiers ([RFC3986], [RFC3987]) for documents …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3

  This document does not define how fragment identifiers in resource
  identifiers ([RFC3986], [RFC3987]) for documents labeled with one of
  the media types defined in this document are resolved.  An update of
  this document may define processing of fragment identifiers.

This section is the "modules" section; the disclaimer of specification of
fragment handling seems to apply to both script and module content, and thus
to be misplaced in this section.

Section 5

  Module scripts in ECMAScript can request the fetching and processing
  of additional scripts, called importing.  Implementations that
  support modules need to process imported sources in the same way as
  scripts.  Further, there may be additional privacy and security
  concerns depending on the location(s) the original script and its
  imported modules are obtained from.  For instance, a script obtained
  from "host-a.example" could request to import a script from "host-
  b.example", which could expose information about the executing
  environment (e.g., IP address) to "host-b.example".  See the section
  "ECMAScript Language: Scripts and Modules" in [ECMA-262] for details.

Is the referenced "ECMAScript Language: Scripts and Modules" section
supposed to be providing more details on the importing process, or the
potential privacy and security concerns?  I skimmed through it and found
nothing noteworthy on the latter, which suggests that perhaps the former was
intended.  If that's the case, then reordering the sentences within the
paragraph might be helpful.

  This circumstance can further be used to make information, that is
  normally only available to the script, available to a web server by
  encoding the information in the resource identifier of the resource,
  which can further enable eavesdropping attacks.  Implementation of
  such facilities is subject to the security considerations of the host
  environment, as discussed above.

What does "the resource" refer to, here?  I don't see a previous mention of
a resource that it would be referring to.  Is it perhaps a resource that's
the target of a request to the web server that is receiving the information
in question?

Section 7.1

It's pretty surprising to see a normative dependency on RFC 4329 when we
claim to obsolete that document.

Appendix B

Looking at the diff from RFC 4329, I also see some text about handling
application/ecmascript content that has a "version" parameter to the media
type, that seems to have been removed entirely for this document.  Is that
sufficiently noteworthy to be included in this change listing?


NITS

Section 5

  The programming language defined in [ECMA-262] is not intended to be
  computationally self-sufficient, rather it is expected that the
  computational environment provides facilities to programs to enable
  specific functionality.  [...]

The comma usage seems off here.  I'm not sure if the sentence overall
contains a comma splice or not, but probably there should be a comma after
"rather" regardless of whether the first comma is converted to
semicolon/full-stop or otherwise.

Section 6

  application/ecmascript" is to be removed.  IANA is requested to add
  the note "OBSOLETED in favor of text/javascript" to all registrations
  except "text/javascript".

Presumably this is "all registrations listed in this document", not "all
registrations in the registry"...

Section 6.2.x

I extracted the various subsections and used diff to compare them.
Aside from the expected variation in type/subtype name and file extension
(.es vs .js), there is also variation in:

- whether there is a full stop at the end of the "Change controller" line

- the "See also [sections] of [this document]" sentence in the
  interoperability considerations -- some say "various sections", others
  "section 4.1"; some have a "regarding the charset parameter" clause and
  others don't.  I'm not sure whether these variations are intentional or
  not.

- some have the "Person & email address to contact for further information"
  listing both this document and RFC 4329, but most just list this document.

- text/livescript does not have a note about this registration applying to
  later editions of [ECMA-262]; perhaps that's appropriate for the
  livescript media type.
2022-01-05
13 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2022-01-05
13 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for cleaning up the use of these media types.

I've no significant comments, with only a nit level comment that I …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for cleaning up the use of these media types.

I've no significant comments, with only a nit level comment that I found the following paragraph in the introduction to be slightly strange because I read it as implying (i) to be compliant with this RFC, implementations must also read/consider any future RFCs that update it, and (ii) future 'optional' updates may break implementation conformance to this RFC, which makes those updates seem less optional.  I would propose just deleting this paragraph, but happy to leave it to the authors discretion.

  This document may be updated to take other content into account.
  Updates of this document may introduce new optional parameters;
  implementations MUST consider the impact of such an update.

Regards,
Rob
2022-01-05
13 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-01-04
13 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2022-01-04
13 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Radia Perlman for the SECDIR review.
2022-01-04
13 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-01-03
13 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2022-01-03
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2022-01-03
13 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-13.txt
2022-01-03
13 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2022-01-03
13 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2022-01-03
12 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below ssome non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below ssome non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Ben Campbell for the shepherd's write-up including the section about the WG consensus for this update and on RFC 4329.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3 --

Is TC39 so well-known by the IETF community that no expansion/explanation is required?

-- Section 5 --
This security section is pretty extensive (good thing) and I wonder whether it is relevant to this document as it is not related to the media types themselves but more on the scripting language itself.


== NITS ==

-- Section 4.2 --
Suggestion, add "else" on steps 2 and 3 to be clear.
2022-01-03
12 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2022-01-03
12 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Robert Sparks for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/FyX4Y9g6TCBUB4t2GtsRyjrRWTQ).
2022-01-03
12 Lars Eggert Ballot comment text updated for Lars Eggert
2022-01-03
12 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2021-12-22
12 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-12-08
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2021-12-08
12 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-12.txt
2021-12-08
12 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2021-12-08
12 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2021-12-06
11 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-01-06
2021-12-06
11 Francesca Palombini Ballot has been issued
2021-12-06
11 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2021-12-06
11 Francesca Palombini Created "Approve" ballot
2021-12-06
11 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2021-12-03
11 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2021-12-03
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-12-03
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2021-12-03
11 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-11.txt
2021-12-03
11 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2021-12-03
11 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2021-11-18
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2021-11-15
10 Francesca Palombini Waiting for update based on IETF Last Call feedback.
2021-11-15
10 (System) Changed action holders to Matthew Miller, Francesca Palombini, Bradley Farias, Myles Borins, Mathias Bynens (IESG state changed)
2021-11-15
10 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2021-11-15
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2021-11-12
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2021-11-12
10 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are six actions which we must complete.

First, in the text registry on the Media Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the note stating that the "text/javascript" media type has been "OBSOLETED in favor of application/javascript" is to be removed. In addition, the note stating that the "text/ecmascript" media type has been "OBSOLETED in favor of application/ecmascript" is to be removed.

Second, also in the text registry on the Media Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the note "OBSOLETED in favor of text/javascript" is to be added to the following registrations:

text/javascript1.0
text/javascript1.1
text/javascript1.2
text/javascript1.3
text/javascript1.4
text/javascript1.5
text/jscript
text/livescript
text/x-ecmascript
text/x-javascript

Third, also in the text registry on the Media Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the template for the registration for text/javascript will be changed to the contents of 6.1.1 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ].

Fourth, in the application registry on the Media Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the following existing registrations will be modified:

application/ecmascript will have its template changed to the contents of section 6.2.1 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

application/javascript will have its template changed to the contents of section 6.2.2 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

Fifth, also in the application registry on the Media Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

two new registrations will be made as follows:

application/x-ecmascript with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.3 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

application/x-javascript with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.4 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

Sixth, in the text registry on the Media Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

eleven new registrations will be made as follows:

text/ecmascript with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.5 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/javascript1.0 with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.6 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/javascript1.1 with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.7 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/javascript1.2 with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.8 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/javascript1.3 with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.9 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/javascript1.4 with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.10 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/javascript1.5 with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.11 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/jscript with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.12 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/livescript with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.13 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/x-ecmascript with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.14 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

text/x-javascript with its template adapted from the contents of section 6.2.15 of the current document with [this document] replaced with [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2021-11-11
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman.
2021-11-11
10 Robert Sparks Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list.
2021-10-29
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2021-10-29
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2021-10-28
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2021-10-28
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2021-10-27
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2021-10-27
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2021-10-26
10 Mark Nottingham Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Mark Nottingham. Sent review to list.
2021-10-26
10 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Mark Nottingham
2021-10-26
10 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Mark Nottingham
2021-10-25
10 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2021-10-25
10 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-11-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Ben Campbell , ben@nostrum.com, dispatch-chairs@ietf.org, dispatch@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-11-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Ben Campbell , ben@nostrum.com, dispatch-chairs@ietf.org, dispatch@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (ECMAScript Media Types Updates) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Dispatch WG (dispatch) to consider
the following document: - 'ECMAScript Media Types Updates'
  as Informational RFC

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-11-15. 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 describes the registration of media types for the
  ECMAScript and JavaScript programming languages and conformance
  requirements for implementations of these types.  This document
  obsoletes RFC4329, "Scripting Media Types", replacing the previous
  registrations for "text/javascript" and "application/javascript" with
  information and requirements aligned with implementation experiences.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs/



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




2021-10-25
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2021-10-25
10 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2021-10-25
10 Francesca Palombini Requested Last Call review by I18NDIR
2021-10-25
10 Francesca Palombini Last call was requested
2021-10-25
10 Francesca Palombini Last call announcement was generated
2021-10-25
10 Francesca Palombini Ballot approval text was generated
2021-10-25
10 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-10-12
10 Mathias Bynens This document now replaces draft-bfarias-javascript-mjs instead of draft-bfarias-javascript-mjs
2021-10-12
10 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2021-10-12
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-10-12
10 Mathias Bynens New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-10.txt
2021-10-12
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mathias Bynens)
2021-10-12
10 Mathias Bynens Uploaded new revision
2021-08-24
09 Francesca Palombini AD review posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/iFwx0hfLZAVmWXyGNv7V9_BM-Mw/
2021-08-24
09 (System) Changed action holders to Matthew Miller, Francesca Palombini, Bradley Farias, Myles Borins, Mathias Bynens (IESG state changed)
2021-08-24
09 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-07-21
09 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-07-21
09 Francesca Palombini Ballot writeup was changed
2021-07-13
09 Kirsty Paine Notification list changed to Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> from Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
2021-07-13
09 Kirsty Paine
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, …
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 expected status is "informational". This is indicated on the title page. This is the appropriate status since this draft obsoletes RFC 4329, which was also informational. It also updates several media-type registrations, which requires IESG approval--an informational RFC seems appropriate for that purpose.

(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 updates the ECMAScript media types to prefer "text/javascript", obsoletes other related media types, and introduces the new .mjs extension for JavaScript modules in order to align with implementation experience and industry practice. This document obsoletes RFC4329, "Scripting Media Types".

Working Group Summary:

When this document was adopted by DISPATCH, it was a fairly simple update of RFC 4329 to update the IANA registrations to prefer "text/javascript" and to mark other related media types as "OBSOLETE". The draft was changed to obsolete RFC 4329 due to WGLC feedback. That document has issues primarily related to how one determines text encoding and the use of file extensions to determine whether content should be interpreted as a module or script. This draft makes minor updates to that original text to align with current operational reality, but it does not attempt to "fix" them in ways that do not reflect current practice. This resulted in some discontent among reviewers who would prefer cleaner fixes vs. document existing practice.

There have also been discontent about unnecessary and somewhat convoluted normative language in RFC 4329. This draft does not attempt to fix that in general, although it has made some simplifications in the text about determining the character-encoding scheme.

Document Quality:

The procedures in the draft are understood by this shepherd to be implemented by most web browsers.

The draft has undergone i18n and media-type reviews. John Levine performed a helpful early i18n review of version 07 on 8 May 2020. That review and follow on discussion resulted in improvements in version 08.  The draft was posted to the media-type mailing list on 17 May, 2021. The resulting media-type discussion mainly rehashed issues already discussed (see "Working Group Summary")


Personnel:

The responsible AD is Francesca Palombini. The shepherd is Ben Campbell.

(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 shepherd performed a detailed review, and believes this version is ready for IESG consideration.  The shepherd does think the abstract should be updated, and will convey that to the authors.  [Update: Version 09 updates the abstract and resolves my concern.]  The shepherd also stumbled on some of the normative language mentioned in the "Working Group Summary", but recognized that said text came from RFC 4329 and fixing it is not really in scope for this document.

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

The shepherd thinks this document has been reviewed to the point of diminishing returns (And expects some of the same issues to be rehashed in IETF last call.)

(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 draft has received i18n and media-type review. Please see the "Document Quality" section for details.


(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.

The shepherd is concerned that future reviews will continue to thrash over the determination of character encoding and content intent. Reviewers should keep in mind that the procedures in this draft are widely implemented, and non-backwards-compatible changes are not likely to be implemented.

(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?

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of undisclosed IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There have been no IPR disclosures.

(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 WG consensus represents a compromise among the authors and a small number of expert participants.

(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.)

While there has been some general discontent as mentioned above, the shepherd is not aware of any intent to appeal.


(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.

The shepherd is not aware of any nits beyond the previous comment about the abstract. Idnits 2.16.04 gives it a clean report. [Update: The comment about the abstract is resolved in version 09]

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

The draft was posted to the media type mailing list as required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are so categorized.

(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 are no such references.

(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 normative downrefs. (The draft is expected to be informational )

(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 draft will obsolete RFC 4329, as indicated in all the places.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations section appears to be consistent with the document. The referenced IANA registry is clear. This draft does not create new registries.


(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.

This draft does not create new registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use of formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The draft does not include a YANG module.
2021-07-13
09 Kirsty Paine IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-07-13
09 Kirsty Paine IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching
2021-07-13
09 Kirsty Paine IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-07-01
09 Ben Campbell
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, …
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 expected status is "informational". This is indicated on the title page. This is the appropriate status since this draft obsoletes RFC 4329, which was also informational. It also updates several media-type registrations, which requires IESG approval--an informational RFC seems appropriate for that purpose.

(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 updates the ECMAScript media types to prefer "text/javascript", obsoletes other related media types, and introduces the new .mjs extension for JavaScript modules in order to align with implementation experience and industry practice. This document obsoletes RFC4329, "Scripting Media Types".

Working Group Summary:

When this document was adopted by DISPATCH, it was a fairly simple update of RFC 4329 to update the IANA registrations to prefer "text/javascript" and to mark other related media types as "OBSOLETE". The draft was changed to obsolete RFC 4329 due to WGLC feedback. That document has issues primarily related to how one determines text encoding and the use of file extensions to determine whether content should be interpreted as a module or script. This draft makes minor updates to that original text to align with current operational reality, but it does not attempt to "fix" them in ways that do not reflect current practice. This resulted in some discontent among reviewers who would prefer cleaner fixes vs. document existing practice.

There have also been discontent about unnecessary and somewhat convoluted normative language in RFC 4329. This draft does not attempt to fix that in general, although it has made some simplifications in the text about determining the character-encoding scheme.

Document Quality:

The procedures in the draft are understood by this shepherd to be implemented by most web browsers.

The draft has undergone i18n and media-type reviews. John Levine performed a helpful early i18n review of version 07 on 8 May 2020. That review and follow on discussion resulted in improvements in version 08.  The draft was posted to the media-type mailing list on 17 May, 2021. The resulting media-type discussion mainly rehashed issues already discussed (see "Working Group Summary")


Personnel:

The responsible AD is Francesca Palombini. The shepherd is Ben Campbell.

(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 shepherd performed a detailed review, and believes this version is ready for IESG consideration.  The shepherd does think the abstract should be updated, and will convey that to the authors.  [Update: Version 09 updates the abstract and resolves my concern.]  The shepherd also stumbled on some of the normative language mentioned in the "Working Group Summary", but recognized that said text came from RFC 4329 and fixing it is not really in scope for this document.

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

The shepherd thinks this document has been reviewed to the point of diminishing returns (And expects some of the same issues to be rehashed in IETF last call.)

(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 draft has received i18n and media-type review. Please see the "Document Quality" section for details.


(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.

The shepherd is concerned that future reviews will continue to thrash over the determination of character encoding and content intent. Reviewers should keep in mind that the procedures in this draft are widely implemented, and non-backwards-compatible changes are not likely to be implemented.

(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?

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of undisclosed IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There have been no IPR disclosures.

(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 WG consensus represents a compromise among the authors and a small number of expert participants.

(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.)

While there has been some general discontent as mentioned above, the shepherd is not aware of any intent to appeal.


(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.

The shepherd is not aware of any nits beyond the previous comment about the abstract. Idnits 2.16.04 gives it a clean report. [Update: The comment about the abstract is resolved in version 09]

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

The draft was posted to the media type mailing list as required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are so categorized.

(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 are no such references.

(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 normative downrefs. (The draft is expected to be informational )

(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 draft will obsolete RFC 4329, as indicated in all the places.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations section appears to be consistent with the document. The referenced IANA registry is clear. This draft does not create new registries.


(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.

This draft does not create new registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use of formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The draft does not include a YANG module.
2021-07-01
09 Ben Campbell
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, …
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 expected status is "informational". This is indicated on the title page. This is the appropriate status since this draft obsoletes RFC 4329, which was also informational. It also updates several media-type registrations, which requires IESG approval--an informational RFC seems appropriate for that purpose.

(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 updates the ECMAScript media types to prefer "text/javascript", obsoletes other related media types, and introduces the new .mjs extension for JavaScript modules in order to align with implementation experience and industry practice. This document obsoletes RFC4329, "Scripting Media Types".

Working Group Summary:

When this document was adopted by DISPATCH, it was a fairly simple update of RFC 4329 to update the IANA registrations to prefer "text/javascript" and to mark other related media types as "OBSOLETE". The draft was changed to obsolete RFC 4329 due to WGLC feedback. That document has issues primarily related to how one determines text encoding and the use of file extensions to determine whether content should be interpreted as a module or script. This draft makes minor updates to that original text to align with current operational reality, but it does not attempt to "fix" them in ways that do not reflect current practice. This resulted in some discontent among reviewers who would prefer cleaner fixes vs. document existing practice.

There have also been discontent about unnecessary and somewhat convoluted normative language in RFC 4329. This draft does not attempt to fix that in general, although it has made some simplifications in the text about determining the character-encoding scheme.

Document Quality:

The procedures in the draft are understood by this shepherd to be implemented by most web browsers.

The draft has undergone i18n and media-type reviews. John Levine performed a helpful early i18n review of version 07 on 8 May 2020. That review and follow on discussion resulted in improvements in version 08.  The draft was posted to the media-type mailing list on 17 May, 2021. The resulting media-type discussion mainly rehashed issues already discussed (see "Working Group Summary")


Personnel:

The responsible AD is Francesca Palombini. The shepherd is Ben Campbell.

(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 shepherd performed a detailed review, and believes this version is ready for IESG consideration.  The shepherd does think the abstract should be updated, and will convey that to the authors. The shepherd also stumbled on some of the normative language mentioned in the "Working Group Summary", but recognized that said text came from RFC 4329 and fixing it is not really in scope for this document.

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

The shepherd thinks this document has been reviewed to the point of diminishing returns (And expects some of the same issues to be rehashed in IETF last call.)

(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 draft has received i18n and media-type review. Please see the "Document Quality" section for details.


(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.

The shepherd is concerned that future reviews will continue to thrash over the determination of character encoding and content intent. Reviewers should keep in mind that the procedures in this draft are widely implemented, and non-backwards-compatible changes are not likely to be implemented.

(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?

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of undisclosed IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There have been no IPR disclosures.

(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 WG consensus represents a compromise among the authors and a small number of expert participants.

(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.)

While there has been some general discontent as mentioned above, the shepherd is not aware of any intent to appeal.


(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.

The shepherd is not aware of any nits beyond the previous comment about the abstract. Idnits 2.16.04 gives it a clean report.

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

The draft was posted to the media type mailing list as required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are so categorized.

(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 are no such references.

(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 normative downrefs. (The draft is expected to be informational )

(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 draft will obsolete RFC 4329, as indicated in all the places.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations section appears to be consistent with the document. The referenced IANA registry is clear. This draft does not create new registries.


(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.

This draft does not create new registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use of formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The draft does not include a YANG module.
2021-07-01
09 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2021-07-01
09 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead
2021-06-30
09 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-09.txt
2021-06-30
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Matthew Miller)
2021-06-30
09 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2021-06-28
08 Ben Campbell
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, …
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 expected status is "informational". This is indicated on the title page. This is the appropriate status since this draft obsoletes RFC 4329, which was also informational. It also updates several media-type registrations, which requires IESG approval--an informational RFC seems appropriate for that purpose.

(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 updates the ECMAScript media types to prefer "text/javascript" and obsoleting other related media types, in order to align with implementation experience and industry practice. This document obsoletes RFC4329, "Scripting Media Types".

Working Group Summary:

When this document was adopted by DISPATCH, it was a fairly simple update of RFC 4329 to update the IANA registrations to prefer "text/javascript" and to mark other related media types as "OBSOLETE". The draft was changed to obsolete RFC 4329 due to WGLC feedback. That document has issues primarily related to how one determines text encoding and the use of file extensions to determine whether content should be interpreted as a module or script. This draft makes minor updates to that original text to align with current operational reality, but it does not attempt to "fix" them in ways that do not reflect current practice. This resulted in some discontent among reviewers who would prefer cleaner fixes vs. document existing practice.

There have also been discontent about unnecessary and somewhat convoluted normative language in RFC 4329. This draft does not attempt to fix that in general, although it has made some simplifications in the text about determining the character-encoding scheme.

Document Quality:

The procedures in the draft are understood by this shepherd to be implemented by most web browsers.

The draft has undergone i18n and media-type reviews. John Levine performed a helpful early i18n review of version 07 on 8 May 2020. That review and follow on discussion resulted in improvements in version 08.  The draft was posted to the media-type mailing list on 17 May, 2021. The resulting media-type discussion mainly rehashed issues already discussed (see "Working Group Summary")


Personnel:

The responsible AD is Francesca Palombini. The shepherd is Ben Campbell.

(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 shepherd performed a detailed review, and believes this version is ready for IESG consideration.  The shepherd does think the abstract should be updated, and will convey that to the authors. The shepherd also stumbled on some of the normative language mentioned in the "Working Group Summary", but recognized that said text came from RFC 4329 and fixing it is not really in scope for this document.

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

The shepherd thinks this document has been reviewed to the point of diminishing returns (And expects some of the same issues to be rehashed in IETF last call.)

(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 draft has received i18n and media-type review. Please see the "Document Quality" section for details.


(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.

The shepherd is concerned that future reviews will continue to thrash over the determination of character encoding and content intent. Reviewers should keep in mind that the procedures in this draft are widely implemented, and non-backwards-compatible changes are not likely to be implemented.

(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?

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of undisclosed IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There have been no IPR disclosures.

(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 WG consensus represents a compromise among the authors and a small number of expert participants.

(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.)

While there has been some general discontent as mentioned above, the shepherd is not aware of any intent to appeal.


(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.

The shepherd is not aware of any nits beyond the previous comment about the abstract. Idnits 2.16.04 gives it a clean report.

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

The draft was posted to the media type mailing list as required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are so categorized.

(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 are no such references.

(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 normative downrefs. (The draft is expected to be informational )

(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 draft will obsolete RFC 4329, as indicated in all the places.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations section appears to be consistent with the document. The referenced IANA registry is clear. This draft does not create new registries.


(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.

This draft does not create new registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use of formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The draft does not include a YANG module.
2021-03-10
08 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Francesca Palombini
2021-02-22
08 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-08.txt
2021-02-22
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Matthew Miller)
2021-02-22
08 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2020-10-24
07 (System) Document has expired
2020-10-24
07 (System) IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching
2020-05-08
07 John Levine Request for Early review by I18NDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: John Levine. Sent review to list.
2020-05-05
07 Pete Resnick Request for Early review by I18NDIR is assigned to John Levine
2020-05-05
07 Pete Resnick Request for Early review by I18NDIR is assigned to John Levine
2020-05-05
07 Pete Resnick Requested Early review by I18NDIR
2020-04-23
07 Ben Campbell IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2020-04-22
07 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07.txt
2020-04-22
07 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Matthew Miller)
2020-04-22
07 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2020-03-25
06 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Barry Leiba
2020-03-06
06 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-06.txt
2020-03-06
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Matthew Miller)
2020-03-06
06 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2019-10-31
05 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-05.txt
2019-10-31
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Matthew Miller)
2019-10-31
05 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2019-09-18
04 Alexey Melnikov Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2019-09-17
04 Ben Campbell Notification list changed to Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> from Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
2019-09-17
04 Ben Campbell Document shepherd changed to Ben Campbell
2019-08-26
04 Alexey Melnikov IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead
2019-06-19
04 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-04.txt
2019-06-19
04 (System) New version approved
2019-06-19
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Myles Borins , Mathias Bynens , Matthew Miller , Bradley Farias
2019-06-19
04 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2019-02-22
03 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-03.txt
2019-02-22
03 (System) New version approved
2019-02-22
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Matthew Miller , Bradley Farias , dispatch-chairs@ietf.org
2019-02-22
03 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2019-02-14
02 Barry Leiba
Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs

1. Summary

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd; Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD.

This document updates the ECMAscript/javascript Media …
Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs

1. Summary

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd; Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD.

This document updates the ECMAscript/javascript Media Types
registrations, updating RFC 4329.  An Informational document in the IETF
stream is the appropriate way to handle this update.

2. Review and Consensus

The document is unremarkable and straightforward, so there is no surprise
that only a few people were interested in discussing it.  The main issues
of discussion were the addition of the ".mjs" file extension and the fact
that the document updates 15 OBSOLETE registrations.  The reason for
making the update is to ensure that it's clear which media types that
were used from time to time are no longer in use, and which one
(text/javascript) is.

The document is desired by ECMA TC39, and was brought to us by one of
their members.  The document is changing the registrations in part to
reflect how the relevant media types are actually being used (for
example, making "text/javascript" COMMON rather than OBSOLETE), and in
part to add parameters that are desired by implementors (the "goal"
parameter and the ".mjs" file extension).

3. Intellectual Property

The document authors are in full conformance with BCPs 78 and 79, and
there are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points

At this writing, there is an unused reference to RFC 3023.  It will be
used or removed before publication.

Essentially, the whole document is about IANA Considerations, and the
IANA Considerations section is clear, if lengthy, specifying new
registration templates for 16 Media Types registrations.  No new
registries are created.
2018-11-09
02 (System) Document has expired
2018-05-08
02 Matthew Miller New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-02.txt
2018-05-08
02 (System) New version approved
2018-05-08
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Matthew Miller , Bradley Farias
2018-05-08
02 Matthew Miller Uploaded new revision
2018-05-03
01 (System) Document has expired
2018-05-03
01 (System) IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching
2018-04-11
01 Mary Barnes Notification list changed to Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
2018-04-11
01 Mary Barnes Document shepherd changed to Barry Leiba
2017-12-08
01 Alexey Melnikov Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov
2017-12-08
01 Alexey Melnikov Intended Status changed to Informational
2017-12-08
01 Alexey Melnikov IESG process started in state AD is watching
2017-12-08
01 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-bfarias-javascript-mjs/
2017-10-30
01 Bradley Farias New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-01.txt
2017-10-30
01 (System) Forced post of submission
2017-10-30
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Matthew Miller , Bradley Farias
2017-10-30
01 Bradley Farias Uploaded new revision
2017-10-08
00 Mary Barnes This document now replaces draft-bfarias-javascript-mjs instead of None
2017-10-08
00 Bradley Farias New version available: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-00.txt
2017-10-08
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-10-08
00 Bradley Farias Set submitter to "Bradley Meck Farias ", replaces to draft-bfarias-javascript-mjs and sent approval email to group chairs: dispatch-chairs@ietf.org
2017-10-08
00 Bradley Farias Uploaded new revision