The 'haptics' Top-level Media Type
draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-06-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2024-06-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2024-06-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2024-06-26
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2024-06-19
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2024-06-19
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2024-06-19
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2024-06-17
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2024-06-17
|
05 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2024-06-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2024-06-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2024-06-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2024-06-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-06-17
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2024-01-26
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Jon Mitchell Last Call OPSDIR review |
2024-01-26
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue |
2023-09-29
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing |
2023-09-29
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Pete Resnick was marked no-response |
2023-09-21
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2023-09-21
|
05 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2023-09-20
|
05 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2023-09-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-09-20
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05 CC @larseggert Thanks to Mallory Knodel for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/TqOyzAUOeTyOtRys9E58FeOnQuY). … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05 CC @larseggert Thanks to Mallory Knodel for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/TqOyzAUOeTyOtRys9E58FeOnQuY). ## Comments ### Boilerplate This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "OPTIONAL", "SHOULD", "REQUIRED", "MUST NOT", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "SHALL NOT", "SHALL", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST", and "MAY", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `native`; alternatives might be `built-in`, `fundamental`, `ingrained`, `intrinsic`, `original` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### URLs These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: * http://www.iana.org/form/media-types ### Grammar/style #### Section 2.5, paragraph 6 ``` ocial media application QQ and live streaming application NOW: Immersion-Ann ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This expression is normally spelled as one or with a hyphen. #### Section 4.1, paragraph 1 ``` a parameter sub-value in the comma- separated list, it should ignore the su ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or removing the hyphen completely. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2023-09-20
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2023-09-20
|
05 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-09-19
|
05 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-09-19
|
05 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2023-09-19
|
05 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2023-09-18
|
05 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2023-09-18
|
05 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] It seems to me as though the IANA Considerations section is a little deficient in that it doesn’t specifically request IANA to create … [Ballot comment] It seems to me as though the IANA Considerations section is a little deficient in that it doesn’t specifically request IANA to create the “haptics” registry. Maybe the authors assume that’s an obvious side-effect of registering the “haptics” top-level type — and maybe it is. I leave it to the sponsoring AD and IANA to work out if any changes are needed. |
2023-09-18
|
05 | John Scudder | Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder |
2023-09-18
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Derrell Piper for the SECDIR review. ** Section 2. Editorial. Is it worth mentioning that haptic signals are used to … [Ballot comment] Thank you to Derrell Piper for the SECDIR review. ** Section 2. Editorial. Is it worth mentioning that haptic signals are used to make certain interfaces more accessible for visually or hearing impaired? Only entertainment seems to be highlighted in the current text. ** Section 2.4 and 2.5. Editorial. This section makes references to numerous industry stats. Since that isn’t original analysis by the WG, consider providing citations. ** Section 2.4. Editorial. This section seems to be trying to establish market adoption. The case is strongly made by all items in in the bulleted list except the reference to W3C. How does the definition of a standard demonstrate haptics being a standard feature of adoption in consumer electronics devices without explained the uptake of this work in W3C. ** Section 2.5 While these subtypes have *not* been registered with IANA or standardized (yet), the prevalence of these haptic data formats in a large number of devices around the world, pre-dating the standardization of haptic tracks in ISOBMFF, provides a compelling argument for 'haptics' to be designated as a top-level media type: Isn’t “ivs” being registered in Section 4.3.1 ** Section 2.5. Editorial. Consider providing a citation for ogg (just like the other formats in the section). ** Section 2.5. - In mobile haptic advertising (for W3C devices) What are “W3C devices”? ** Section 2.6. These codes are not registered yet, but the plan is indeed to standardize these haptic coding formats in the near future. Once standardized, these types should also be registered as subtypes of the 'haptics' top-level media type: Isn’t “hmpg” and hjif” registered in Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.2 respectively? What is the standardization being waited for? |
2023-09-18
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-09-18
|
05 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Note that the Section 4.1 text seems rather large and mostly not intended for IANA. Perhaps the text should be moved elsewhere or … [Ballot comment] Note that the Section 4.1 text seems rather large and mostly not intended for IANA. Perhaps the text should be moved elsewhere or deleted. |
2023-09-18
|
05 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-09-18
|
05 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2023-09-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-09-21 |
2023-09-12
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot has been issued |
2023-09-12
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2023-09-12
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Created "Approve" ballot |
2023-09-12
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2023-09-12
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot writeup was changed |
2023-09-11
|
05 | Mallory Knodel | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mallory Knodel. Sent review to list. |
2023-09-11
|
05 | Sheng Jiang | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. Sent review to list. |
2023-09-11
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2023-09-08
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-09-08
|
05 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05. 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-mediaman-haptics-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that three actions are required upon approval of this document. First, in the Top-Level Media Types registry to be created by draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel at https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ the following entry will be added: Name: haptics Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Registry: [ TBD at registration ] Comments: - Second, "haptics" will be added to the registration form at https://www.iana.org/form/media-types Third, IANA will create a new "haptics" media type registry, which will be governed by the registration procedures described by RFC 6838 (and which will therefore list RFC 6838 as an additional reference). This registry will consist of three initial registrations: Name: ivs Template: [ TBD at registration ] Reference: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 2 N 0072 Name: hjif Template: [ TBD at registration ] Reference: ISO/IEC DIS 23090-31 Name: hmpg Template: [ TBD at registration ] Reference: ISO/IEC DIS 23090-31 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. 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 |
2023-09-07
|
05 | Derrell Piper | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derrell Piper. Sent review to list. |
2023-08-31
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Mallory Knodel |
2023-08-31
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper |
2023-08-31
|
05 | Juan-Carlos Zúñiga | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2023-08-31
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell |
2023-08-30
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2023-08-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-08-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics@ietf.org, harald@alvestrand.no, media-types@ietf.org, mediaman-chairs@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics@ietf.org, harald@alvestrand.no, media-types@ietf.org, mediaman-chairs@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (The 'haptics' Top-level Media Type) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Media Type Maintenance WG (mediaman) to consider the following document: - 'The 'haptics' Top-level Media Type' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-09-11. 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 memo serves to register and document the 'haptics' top-level media type, under which subtypes for representation formats for haptics may be registered. This document also serves as a registration for a set of subtypes, which are representative of some existing subtypes already in use. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2023-08-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-08-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2023-08-26
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Last call was requested |
2023-08-26
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-08-26
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-08-26
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2023-08-26
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? It represents a broad agreement. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only contentious point near the end was the choice of media types to register; the chosen types were, in the end, all ISO standard references. 3. 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.) No. 4. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is a registration document, so implementations go elsewhere (ISO). ## Additional Reviews 5. 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. It closely interacts with ISO work on haptics formats, but the author is closely involved with the ISO work. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]? N/A 8. 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. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. 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. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No such reviews have occured so far. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards track. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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. 13. 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. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Only significant warning is about non-ASCII characters. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. 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? The remaining normative reference is to [TOPLEVEL], for which IETF Last Call has already been requested. 19. 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. No. 20. 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][11]). There are no new registries. Registration in existing registries have been extensively reviewed. 21. 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 registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2023-08-18
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | Notification list changed to harald@alvestrand.no because the document shepherd was set |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | Document shepherd changed to Harald T. Alvestrand |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? It represents a broad agreement. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only contentious point near the end was the choice of media types to register; the chosen types were, in the end, all ISO standard references. 3. 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.) No. 4. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is a registration document, so implementations go elsewhere (ISO). ## Additional Reviews 5. 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. It closely interacts with ISO work on haptics formats, but the author is closely involved with the ISO work. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]? N/A 8. 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. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. 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. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No such reviews have occured so far. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards track. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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. 13. 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. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Only significant warning is about non-ASCII characters. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. 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? The remaining normative reference is to [TOPLEVEL], for which IETF Last Call has already been requested. 19. 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. No. 20. 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][11]). There are no new registries. Registration in existing registries have been extensively reviewed. 21. 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 registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | Version -03 was WG Last Called and had comments. Version -05 addressed all the comments. The WG, in meeting at IETF 117, decided that a … Version -03 was WG Last Called and had comments. Version -05 addressed all the comments. The WG, in meeting at IETF 117, decided that a new WG Last Call was not needed. |
2023-08-18
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2023-07-27
|
05 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version available: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05.txt |
2023-07-27
|
05 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version approved |
2023-07-27
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Ullrich , Yeshwant Muthusamy |
2023-07-27
|
05 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-24
|
04 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version available: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-04.txt |
2023-07-24
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-07-24
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Ullrich , Yeshwant Muthusamy |
2023-07-24
|
04 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-18
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | WG Last Call was emailed on June 20, 2023, and extended to July 11. State change was recorded later. |
2023-07-18
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-02-17
|
03 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed action holders to Chris Ullrich, Yeshwant Muthusamy |
2023-02-08
|
03 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version available: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-03.txt |
2023-02-08
|
03 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yeshwant Muthusamy) |
2023-02-08
|
03 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-30
|
02 | Robert Sparks | The system moved this to IESG state Dead when the draft expired. |
2022-11-30
|
02 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2022-11-30
|
02 | Robert Sparks | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead |
2022-11-23
|
02 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version available: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-02.txt |
2022-11-23
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-11-23
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Ullrich , Yeshwant Muthusamy |
2022-11-23
|
02 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-23
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-11-23
|
01 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2022-05-22
|
01 | (System) | This document now replaces draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics instead of draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics |
2022-05-22
|
01 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version available: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-01.txt |
2022-05-22
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-05-22
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Ullrich , Yeshwant Muthusamy , mediaman-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-05-22
|
01 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-29
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | Removed all action holders |
2022-03-23
|
00 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2022-03-23
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | Responsible AD changed to Murray Kucherawy |
2022-03-23
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2022-03-23
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
2022-03-23
|
00 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics/ |
2021-11-19
|
00 | Harald Alvestrand | This document now replaces draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics instead of None |
2021-11-19
|
00 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | New version available: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-00.txt |
2021-11-19
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-11-19
|
00 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | Set submitter to ""Yeshwant K. Muthusamy" ", replaces to draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics and sent approval email to group chairs: mediaman-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-11-19
|
00 | Yeshwant Muthusamy | Uploaded new revision |