The 'haptics' Top-level Media Type
draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

(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

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.

# 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/

# 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/

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.