Guidelines for the Definition of New Top-Level Media Types
draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-05

[Ballot comment]
No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics] and [draft-duerst-mediaman-toplevel-00].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Uncited references: [RFC8126].

Reference [RFC2048] to RFC2048, which was obsoleted by RFC4289 and RFC4288
(this may be on purpose).

Reference [RFC1341] to RFC1341, which was obsoleted by RFC1521 (this may be on
purpose).

[Ballot comment]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics] and [draft-duerst-mediaman-toplevel-00].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Uncited references: [RFC8126].

Reference [RFC2048] to RFC2048, which was obsoleted by RFC4289 and RFC4288
(this may be on purpose).

Reference [RFC1341] to RFC1341, which was obsoleted by RFC1521 (this may be on
purpose).

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-05

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

Special thanks to Harald Alvestrand for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer, please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03-intdir-lc-fressancourt-2023-09-05/ (and I have read a start of the discussion)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

Probably due to my ignorance on the topic, but in `the right of the slash with a prefix of '.../vnd.` can there be a '/' in the '...' ?

## Section 1.1

Section 1 was about `top-level media types` and now this section is about `top-level types`, they are probably the same concept, but may I suggest introducing the shorthand equivalent ?

I am afraid that I cannot identify the scenarii in `In some older scenarios,`

## Section 2.1

I would expect a BCP document to clearly (punt intended) specify how `clearly` is evaluated in this section. E.g., is IETF consensus on the clarity enough ? See also Lars Eggert's ballot.

Unsure about the usefulness of `Please note that the 'example' top-level describes a subtype 'example'.`

## Section 2.2

`Existing wide use of an undefined top-level type` what is an "undefined top-level type" ? One that is not IANA registered ? Please be explicit.

## Section 2.3

Please expand `RDF`.

## Section 3

An interesting read but suggest moving this section in the introduction or in the appendix.

[Ballot comment]
I believe the guidance this document intends to give is useful. I do not believe the guidance is presented in a way that is actionable enough for a BCP.

[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03

CC @larseggert

## Discuss

### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
  2.  Rules for the Registration of New Top-Level Media Types
```
These aren't really rules or a best current practice. At best, this is
an assembly of considerations around top-level media types one may
want to think about. I had expected much more practical prescriptive
rules that someone considering a new top-level media type can
follow. Could these be tightened up?

### IANA

This document seems to have unresolved IANA issues. Holding a DISCUSS for IANA,
so we can determine next steps during the telechat.

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
    This section describes the rules and criteria for new top-level media
    types, including criteria already defined in RFC 6838 (Media Type
    Specifications and Registration Procedures).  Further work is needed
    to distinguish between required and optional criteria.
```
"Further work is needed" - is this a leftover editing note that should
be removed? If not, where is this work happening and why are we
publishing this now?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 0
```
  2.1.  Required Criteria
```
If they are "required", why are many of them SHOULDs?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 6
```
    *  The registration and actual use of a certain number of subtypes
        under the new top-level type SHOULD be expected.  At a minimum,
        one actual subtype SHOULD exist.  But the existence of a single
        subtype SHOULD not be enough; it SHOULD be clear that new similar
        types may appear in the future.  Otherwise, the creation of a new
        top-level type is most probably not justified.
```
This use of RFC2119-language is IMO a bit iffy. The second SHOULD
("SHOULD exist") should IMO be a MUST, and all the other SHOULDs
should be lowercase, because they are not enforceable
(like the "should" in the last list item).

### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
    The first time an additional top-level type was defined was in RFC
    1437 [RFC1437], but this was purely for entertainment purposes
    (please check date).
```
"Please check date"? Just say that it was an April Fools RFC and not a
standard.

### RFC2119 style

Using lowercase "not" together with an uppercase RFC2119 keyword is not
acceptable usage. Found: "SHOULD not"

## 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.

### Typos

#### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
-    level media types.  This document provides more detailled criteria
-                                                          -
```

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 4
```
-      template for a subtype contains the approriate information.  If
+      template for a subtype contains the appropriate information.  If
+                                                +
```

#### Section 2.2, paragraph 5
```
-    *  Top-level types can help humans with understading and debugging.
+    *  Top-level types can help humans with understanding and debugging.
+                                                    +
```

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC1341]` to `RFC1341`, which was obsoleted by `RFC1521` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC2048]` to `RFC2048`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4288` and
`RFC4289` (this may be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### "Abstract", paragraph 2
```
rnatively, issues can be raised on github at https://github.com/ietf-wg-medi
                                  ^^^^^^
```
The official name of this software platform is spelled with a capital "H".

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 2
```
landscape, where computers and smart phones can handle a very wide variety
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Nowadays, it's more common to write this as one word.

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 5
```
he new top-level type, will allow to check the appropriateness of the defini
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "checking"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

## 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]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-core-sid-22

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Linda Dunbar for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/8dB4NrBDoGCKILyz2wvtvT6sqC0).

## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
    This section describes the rules and criteria for new top-level media
    types, including criteria already defined in RFC 6838 (Media Type
    Specifications and Registration Procedures).  Further work is needed
    to distinguish between required and optional criteria.
```
"Further work is needed" - is this a leftover editing note that should
be removed? If not, where is this work happening and why are we
publishing this now?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 0
```
  2.1.  Required Criteria
```
If they are "required", why are many of them SHOULDs?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 6
```
    *  The registration and actual use of a certain number of subtypes
        under the new top-level type SHOULD be expected.  At a minimum,
        one actual subtype SHOULD exist.  But the existence of a single
        subtype SHOULD not be enough; it SHOULD be clear that new similar
        types may appear in the future.  Otherwise, the creation of a new
        top-level type is most probably not justified.
```
This use of RFC2119-language is IMO a bit iffy. The second SHOULD
("SHOULD exist") should IMO be a MUST, and all the other SHOULDs
should be lowercase, because they are not enforceable
(like the "should" in the last list item).

### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
    The first time an additional top-level type was defined was in RFC
    1437 [RFC1437], but this was purely for entertainment purposes
    (please check date).
```
"Please check date"? Just say that it was an April Fools RFC and not a
standard.

### RFC2119 style

Using lowercase "not" together with an uppercase RFC2119 keyword is not
acceptable usage. Found: "SHOULD not"

## 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.

### Typos

#### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
-    level media types.  This document provides more detailled criteria
-                                                          -
```

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 4
```
-      template for a subtype contains the approriate information.  If
+      template for a subtype contains the appropriate information.  If
+                                                +
```

#### Section 2.2, paragraph 5
```
-    *  Top-level types can help humans with understading and debugging.
+    *  Top-level types can help humans with understanding and debugging.
+                                                    +
```

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC1341]` to `RFC1341`, which was obsoleted by `RFC1521` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC2048]` to `RFC2048`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4288` and
`RFC4289` (this may be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### "Abstract", paragraph 2
```
rnatively, issues can be raised on github at https://github.com/ietf-wg-medi
                                  ^^^^^^
```
The official name of this software platform is spelled with a capital "H".

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 2
```
landscape, where computers and smart phones can handle a very wide variety
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Nowadays, it's more common to write this as one word.

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 5
```
he new top-level type, will allow to check the appropriateness of the defini
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "checking"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

## 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 discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03

CC @larseggert

## Discuss

### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
  2.  Rules for the Registration of New Top-Level Media Types
```
These aren't really rules or a best current practice. At best, this is
an assembly of considerations around top-level media types one may
want to think about. I had expected much more practical prescriptive
rules that someone considering a new top-level media type can
follow. Could these be tightened up?

### IANA

This document seems to have unresolved IANA issues. Holding a DISCUSS for IANA,
so we can determine next steps during the telechat.

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
    This section describes the rules and criteria for new top-level media
    types, including criteria already defined in RFC 6838 (Media Type
    Specifications and Registration Procedures).  Further work is needed
    to distinguish between required and optional criteria.
```
"Further work is needed" - is this a leftover editing note that should
be removed? If not, where is this work happening and why are we
publishing this now?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 0
```
  2.1.  Required Criteria
```
If they are "required", why are many of them SHOULDs?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 6
```
    *  The registration and actual use of a certain number of subtypes
        under the new top-level type SHOULD be expected.  At a minimum,
        one actual subtype SHOULD exist.  But the existence of a single
        subtype SHOULD not be enough; it SHOULD be clear that new similar
        types may appear in the future.  Otherwise, the creation of a new
        top-level type is most probably not justified.
```
This use of RFC2119-language is IMO a bit iffy. The second SHOULD
("SHOULD exist") should IMO be a MUST, and all the other SHOULDs
should be lowercase, because they are not enforceable
(like the "should" in the last list item).

### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
    The first time an additional top-level type was defined was in RFC
    1437 [RFC1437], but this was purely for entertainment purposes
    (please check date).
```
"Please check date"? Just say that it was an April Fools RFC and not a
standard.

### RFC2119 style

Using lowercase "not" together with an uppercase RFC2119 keyword is not
acceptable usage. Found: "SHOULD not"

## 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.

### Typos

#### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
-    level media types.  This document provides more detailled criteria
-                                                          -
```

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 4
```
-      template for a subtype contains the approriate information.  If
+      template for a subtype contains the appropriate information.  If
+                                                +
```

#### Section 2.2, paragraph 5
```
-    *  Top-level types can help humans with understading and debugging.
+    *  Top-level types can help humans with understanding and debugging.
+                                                    +
```

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC1341]` to `RFC1341`, which was obsoleted by `RFC1521` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC2048]` to `RFC2048`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4288` and
`RFC4289` (this may be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### "Abstract", paragraph 2
```
rnatively, issues can be raised on github at https://github.com/ietf-wg-medi
                                  ^^^^^^
```
The official name of this software platform is spelled with a capital "H".

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 2
```
landscape, where computers and smart phones can handle a very wide variety
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Nowadays, it's more common to write this as one word.

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 5
```
he new top-level type, will allow to check the appropriateness of the defini
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "checking"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

## 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]
Thanks for working on this specification. I think the additional considerations will be useful.

In my review I have no TSV related issues (obviously :-) ). However, I think the IANA consideration section should say the registry policy is "RFC required" with "standard track" specification and point to (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-4.7). Even though it puts a requirement saying - "Every new top-level type MUST be defined in a Standards Track RFC", I don't think it hurts repeating it in IANA consideration.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.  I think that this is the right approach.  One minor comment is that I concur with some other ADs comments that the RFC 2119 language feels a bit out of place in the requirements, and much, perhaps all of it might be better stated in regular English.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document!

I support Paul Wouters’ DISCUSS. Generally, the IANA Considerations section is a little less comprehensive than I’m used to seeing, but I guess the sponsoring AD and IANA will be able to work with the authors if they think changes are needed.

Also, to elaborate on one of Paul’s points, it seems to me all the SHOULD in “The registration and actual use of a certain number of subtypes under the new top-level type SHOULD be expected. At a minimum, one actual subtype SHOULD exist. But the existence of a single subtype SHOULD not be enough; it SHOULD be clear that new similar types may appear in the future. Otherwise, the creation of a new top-level type is most probably not justified” are misplaced. They SHOULD be “should”.

Finally, a nit: In Section 3, you don’t want “shortly describes” but “briefly describes”.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document!

I support Paul Wouters’ DISCUSS.

Also, to elaborate on one of Paul’s points, it seems to me all the SHOULD in “The registration and actual use of a certain number of subtypes under the new top-level type SHOULD be expected. At a minimum, one actual subtype SHOULD exist. But the existence of a single subtype SHOULD not be enough; it SHOULD be clear that new similar types may appear in the future. Otherwise, the creation of a new top-level type is most probably not justified” are misplaced. They SHOULD be “should”.

Finally, a nit: In Section 3, you don’t want “shortly describes” but “briefly describes”.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 1.1
  The main function of media types and subtypes is the dispatch of data
  formats to application code.  In most cases, this requires and is
  done using the full type (i.e. including the subtype, and often some
  parameters).  The top-level type can occasionally serve as a fallback
  for the tentative dispatch to applications handling a very wide range
  of related formats.

Consider reminding the reader to make assumptions about correctness of the media type related to the presented content cautiously as one or both could be under the control of an attacker (all of course depending on the circumstances of the application).

** Typos
-- Section 1.  Typo. s/detailled/detailed.

-- Section 2.1.  Typo. s/approriate/appropriate/

-- Section 2.2.  Typo. s/understading/understanding/

[Ballot discuss]
        Every new top-level type MUST be defined in a Standards Track RFC.

This is a bit of an odd thing to say, esp. for a BCP document? Should there
be a Standards Track policy that updates an IANA Registration policy to
be Standards Track for the top-level IANA Registry? If I look at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml
I see no such split in the Registry. It states "Expert Review for Vendor and
Personal Trees", leaving the top level registration policy undefined.
It would be odd if this BCP document would update the registration policy
for this registry at the top level. It is also odd that this document, as
a BCP, DOES in fact create a new Registry for the top level registrations,
but does not clearly set a registration policy.

Additionally, I cannot find a definition of "standards tree" in 6838 or this
document? Are some of the "top levels" in the IANA registree "standard" ?

        At a minimum, one actual subtype SHOULD exist. But the existence
        of a single subtype SHOULD not be enough;

Who are these SHOULDs directed at?

        The document defining the new top-level type MUST include initial
        registrations of actual subtypes.

This MUST and the previous SHOULD's contradict each other.

It also seems these are directives towards the Delegated Experts, so perhaps
these do not need 2119 style wording?

[Ballot comment]
This document references RFC6838 that states:

        The media types reviewer, who is appointed by the
        IETF Applications Area Director(s)

But there is no "Applications" Area anymore. Should this document
mention the new appropriate (ART ?) Area as an update? Or Whatever
the Area is called at time of publication :P

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

I would suggest to request IANA to add a pointer to this document in the media types IANA page (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml) either in one of the existing "Notes", or creating a new one. Not a strong suggestion since the link exists via RFC 6838, but why not making it easier for the reader to find this. Also, I would suggest IANA to add a link to this doc in their Application page https://www.iana.org/form/media-types.

Francesca

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has questions and notes about the action requested in this document.

IANA understands that when this document is approved, the following action is required:

In the "Media Types" registry group at https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types, IANA currently has a registry for each top-level type, but does not have a registry of top-level types.

IANA will create a registry of top-level types and make it the first registry in the "Media Types" registry group. The existing registries associated with the top-level types will effectively become sub-registries of that registry (and will retain the registration procedures currently listed at the top of the "Media Types" registry group page).

The new registry will consist of "Name," "Reference," "Registry," and "Comment" fields. The registration procedure will be "Standards Action," as indicated in Section 2.1. Whether the "Comment" field should be left empty for all of the initial registrations is unclear.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that the name of the new registry is "Top-Level Media Types"? (We understand that the name of the registry group -- the name at the top of the web page -- should remain "Media Types.")

QUESTION: We understand that the "Name" field should be populated with the names of top-level media types that IANA currently maintains registries for ("application," "audio," etc.), but how should we populate their corresponding "Reference" fields? The information provided in narrative form in Section 3 doesn't match the information the designated experts asked us to provide in the media type registration form at https://www.iana.org/form/media-types (see the drop-down menu under "Type Name"). For example, Section 3 states that several types were introduced by RFC 1341, but the designated experts asked us to refer applicants to RFC 2046 for those types. Can a table of registrations be added to the IANA Considerations section? The "Registry" field could be omitted (as can the "Comment" field, if it should initially be empty for all registrations).

NOTE: The registry currently says "Comments can be added or updated by the experts for subtype registrations and by IANA itself," but we don't believe that IANA should have the ability to add comments to registrations without expert approval.

QUESTION: The IANA Considerations section includes comments that could be added to the "text" and "example" registrations, but describes them as "suggested." Should IANA ask the experts now whether those comments should be included? If the experts prefer to leave them out, will they be removed from the document? Alternatively, the document could instruct us to include those comments by including them in a table or list of initial registrations.

NOTE: The sentence 'This can be done by expanding the "Registries included below" section of https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml if that is compatible with IANAs infrastructure' should be removed. "Registries included below" is an automatically-generated list populated by the names of the registries in the group.

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,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel@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:  (Guidelines for the Definition of New Top-Level Media Types) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Media Type Maintenance WG (mediaman)
to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines for the Definition of New
Top-Level Media Types'
  as Best Current Practice

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 document defines best practices for defining new top-level media
  types.  It also introduces a registry for top-level media types, and
  contains a short history of top-level media types.  It updates RFC
  6838.

  [RFC Editor, please remove this paragraph.]  Comments and discussion
  about this document should be directed to media-types@ietf.org, the
  mailing list of the Media Type Maintenance (mediaman) WG.
  Alternatively, issues can be raised on github at https://github.com/
  ietf-wg-mediaman/toplevel.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel/



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?

The document represents a consensus (broad agreement) of the WG. The number of participants in the WG is not large.

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

No particularly controversial points.

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, destined for the BCP track, so irrelevant.
The only possible implementation is IETF / IANA practice.

## 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.

No.

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.

No formal expert review required. The MIME registration designated experts
participated in the discussion.

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 common issues identified.

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?

Best current practice.

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.

Boilerplate reminders have been issued at every WG meeting. This seems adequate.

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.)

The tool warns of obsolete references and a "SHOULD not". These will be fixed
together with any Last Call comments - some of the obsolete references are in
the history section, and as such are correct.

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?

No. (There is an informative reference to the -haptics draft)

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.

Updates RFC 6838. This relationship is clearly explained in the document.

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]).

Confirmed.

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.

The registration procedure uses IETF consensus. No new Designated Expert is required.

[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?

The document represents a consensus (broad agreement) of the WG. The number of participants in the WG is not large.

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

No particularly controversial points.

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, destined for the BCP track, so irrelevant.
The only possible implementation is IETF / IANA practice.

## 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.

No.

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.

No formal expert review required. The MIME registration designated experts
participated in the discussion.

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 common issues identified.

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?

Best current practice.

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.

Boilerplate reminders have been issued at every WG meeting. This seems adequate.

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.)

The tool warns of obsolete references and a "SHOULD not". These will be fixed
together with any Last Call comments - some of the obsolete references are in
the history section, and as such are correct.

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?

No. (There is an informative reference to the -haptics draft)

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.

Updates RFC 6838. This relationship is clearly explained in the document.

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]).

Confirmed.

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.

The registration procedure uses IETF consensus. No new Designated Expert is required.

[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/