Media Type Registration for Protocol Buffers
draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf-07

[Ballot comment]
Totally reasonable.

I did find a slight dissonance between saying "multiple wire formats" and "only the [Binary] and [ProtoJSON] formats"; while both are technically accurate, one phrasing suggests a large number and the other suggests a small one. I would probably change the first to "two wire formats" and omit "only" from the second one.

It might be worth a word about the `encoding` parameter in combination with the media types, which already specify the encoding. Are these intended to allow for versioning / extensions should there ever be an *alternative* binary encoding or an *alternative* JSON encoding? Is there a reason these wouldn't simply be their own new media types?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

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

two new media types are to be registered as follows:

Name: protobuf
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: protobuf+json
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action 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 action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-10-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dispatch-chairs@ietf.org, dispatch@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf@ietf.org, fenton@bluepopcorn.net, orie@or13.io
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Media Type Registration for Protocol Buffers) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Dispatch WG (dispatch) to consider
the following document: - 'Media Type Registration for Protocol Buffers'
  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 2025-10-07. 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 registers media types for Protocol Buffers, a common
  extensible mechanism for serializing structured data.




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



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

Document History

    Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

      A small number of individuals participated in discussion on the document,
      probably due to its specialized nature and the rarity of handling documents
      in the DISPATCH working group.

    Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
    the consensus was particularly rough?

      There was particular discussion about the internationalization aspects of
      the document. It is my understanding that the issues have been resolved.

    Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
    so, please summarize 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.)

      At one point, John Klensin disagreed with whether it is within the DISPATCH
      charter to process this document and mentioned a possible appeal:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ECxthK8IHZj3nbP8yGIJ4iIkBr4/
      (including this rather than a separate email since the comment was also public)

    For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
    the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
    plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
    either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
    (where)?

      This document exists to register media types already in use for protocol
      buffers. Specific implementations are not cited.

Additional Reviews

    Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
    IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
    from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
    reviews took place.

      The primary area of review that might be needed is internationalization.
      Relevant individuals participated in the WG discussion, but broader review
      might be needed.

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

      The relevant review area would be media types since this is a registration
      for media types. However, one of the authors is a media types Designated Expert.

    If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
    been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

      N/A

    Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
    final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
    BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

      No formal languages are used in the document.

Document Shepherd Checks

    Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
    document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
    to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

      Yes

    Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

      As mentioned above, internationalization issues have been noted and addressed.

    What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
    Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

      Informational: This is correct because the document does not specify a protocol
      and exists to satisfy requirements to add entries to an existing registry.

    Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

      Yes; the authors have been polled. One of the authors has pointed out that
      the Google implementation of protobufs
      https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/tree/main
      has a modified BSD 3-clause license
      https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/main/LICENSE.

    Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

      Yes. There are three authors.

    Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
    tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

      The document is free of nits noted by the tool. No problems with the Content
      Guidelines have been noted by the document shepherd.

    Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References.

    List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

      All normative references are freely available.

    Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
    97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
    list them.

      No downward references have been noted.

    Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

      N/A

    Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

      N/A

    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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

      This document is effectively just an IANA consideration section, with a bit
      of descriptive information added.

    List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

      No new IANA registries are defined.

Document History

    Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

      A small number of individuals participated in discussion on the document,
      probably due to its specialized nature and the rarity of handling documents
      in the DISPATCH working group.

    Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
    the consensus was particularly rough?

      There was particular discussion about the internationalization aspects of
      the document. It is my understanding that the issues have been resolved.

    Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
    so, please summarize 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.)

      At one point, John Klensin disagreed with whether it is within the DISPATCH
      charter to process this document and mentioned a possible appeal:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ECxthK8IHZj3nbP8yGIJ4iIkBr4/
      (including this rather than a separate email since the comment was also public)

    For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
    the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
    plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
    either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
    (where)?

      This document exists to register media types already in use for protocol
      buffers. Specific implementations are not cited.

Additional Reviews

    Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
    IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
    from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
    reviews took place.

      The primary area of review that might be needed is internationalization.
      Relevant individuals participated in the WG discussion, but broader review
      might be needed.

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

      The relevant review area would be media types since this is a registration
      for media types. However, one of the authors is a media types Designated Expert.

    If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
    been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

      N/A

    Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
    final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
    BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

      No formal languages are used in the document.

Document Shepherd Checks

    Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
    document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
    to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

      Yes

    Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

      As mentioned above, internationalization issues have been noted and addressed.

    What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
    Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

      Informational: This is correct because the document does not specify a protocol
      and exists to satisfy requirements to add entries to an existing registry.

    Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

      Yes; the authors have been polled. One of the authors has pointed out that
      the Google implementation of protobufs
      https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/tree/main
      has a modified BSD 3-clause license
      https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/main/LICENSE.

    Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

      Yes. There are three authors.

    Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
    tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

      The document is free of nits noted by the tool. No problems with the Content
      Guidelines have been noted by the document shepherd.

    Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References.

    List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

      All normative references are freely available.

    Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
    97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
    list them.

      No downward references have been noted.

    Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

      N/A

    Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

      N/A

    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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

      This document is effectively just an IANA consideration section, with a bit
      of descriptive information added.

    List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

      No new IANA registries are defined.