Skip to main content

Allowing Community Registrations in the Standards Tree
draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mediaman WG)
Author Mark Nottingham
Last updated 2024-06-17
Replaces draft-nottingham-mediaman-standards-tree
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-01
Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                              17 June 2024
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 19 December 2024

         Allowing Community Registrations in the Standards Tree
                 draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-01

Abstract

   Over time, it has become clear that there are media types which have
   the character of belonging in the standards tree (because they are
   not associated with any one vendor or person), but are not published
   by a standards body.  This draft suggests an update to [RFC6838] to
   allow their registration.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 December 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Nottingham              Expires 19 December 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Community Registrations               June 2024

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Standards Tree  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Community Formats in the Standards Tree . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   [RFC6838] only allows registrations in the standards tree from the
   IETF and other "recognized standards-related organizations."

   Over time, it has become clear that there are media types which have
   the character of belonging in the standards tree (because they are
   not associated with any one vendor or person), but are not published
   by a standards body.

   To address this shortcoming, Section 2 suggests a drop-in replacement
   for Section 3.1 of [RFC6838].

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Standards Tree

   The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the
   Internet community.  Registrations in the standards tree MUST be
   either:

   1.  in the case of registrations associated with IETF specifications,
       approved directly by the IESG, or

   2.  registered by a recognized standards-related organization using
       the "Specification Required" IANA registration policy [RFC5226]
       (which implies Expert Review), or

   3.  approved by the Designated Expert(s) as identifying a "community
       format", as described in Section 2.1.

Nottingham              Expires 19 December 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           Community Registrations               June 2024

   The first procedure is used for registrations from IETF Consensus
   documents, or in rare cases when registering a grandfathered (see
   Appendix A) and/or otherwise incomplete registration is in the
   interest of the Internet community.  The registration proposal MUST
   be published as an RFC.  When the registration RFC is in the IETF
   stream, it must have IETF Consensus, which can be attained with a
   status of Standards Track, BCP, Informational, or Experimental.
   Registrations published in non-IETF RFC streams are also allowed and
   require IESG approval.  A registration can be either in a stand-alone
   "registration only" RFC or incorporated into a more general
   specification of some sort.

   In the second case, the IESG makes a one-time decision on whether the
   registration submitter represents a recognized standards-related
   organization; after that, a Media Types Reviewer (Designated Expert
   or a group of Designated Experts) performs the Expert Review as
   specified in this document.  Subsequent submissions from the same
   source do not involve the IESG.  The format MUST be described by a
   formal standards specification produced by the submitting standards-
   related organization.

   The third case is described in Section 2.1.

   Media types in the standards tree MUST NOT have faceted names, unless
   they are grandfathered in using the process described in Appendix A.

   The "owner" of a media type registered in the standards tree is
   assumed to be the standards-related organization itself.
   Modification or alteration of the specification uses the same level
   of processing (e.g., a registration submitted on Standards Track can
   be revised in another Standards Track RFC, but cannot be revised in
   an Informational RFC) required for the initial registration.

   Standards-tree registrations from recognized standards-related
   organizations are submitted directly to the IANA, where they will
   undergo Expert Review [RFC5226] prior to approval.  In this case, the
   Expert Reviewer(s) will, among other things, ensure that the required
   specification provides adequate documentation.

2.1.  Community Formats in the Standards Tree

   Some formats are interoperable (i.e., they are supported by more than
   one implementation), but their specifications are not published by a
   recognized standards-related organization.  To accommodate these
   cases, the Designated Expert(s) are empowered to approve
   registrations in the standards tree that meet the following criteria:

   *  There is a well-defined specification for the format

Nottingham              Expires 19 December 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           Community Registrations               June 2024

   *  That specification is not tied to or heavily associated with one
      implementation

   *  The specification is freely available at a stable location

   *  There are multiple interoperable implementations of the
      specification, or they are likely to emerge

   *  The requested name is appropriate to the use case, and not so
      generic that it may be considered 'squatting'

   *  There is no conflict with IETF work or work at other recognised
      SDOs (present or future)

   *  There is evidence of broad adoption

   The Designated Expert(s) have discretion in applying these criteria;
   in rare cases, they might judge it best to register an entry that
   fails one or more.

   Note that such registrations still go through preliminary community
   review (Section 5.1), and decisions can be appealed (Section 5.3).

3.  IANA Considerations

   This draft introduces no new instructions for IANA.

4.  Security Considerations

   This draft does not introduce new security issues.  Seriously.

5.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.

Nottingham              Expires 19 December 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           Community Registrations               June 2024

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Author's Address

   Mark Nottingham
   Prahran
   Australia
   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://www.mnot.net/

Nottingham              Expires 19 December 2024                [Page 5]