A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences
draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-03

[Ballot comment]
-4: Would it make sense to add something like "..., or any IESG designated successor." to the contact? The ART merger has recently shown that even area WG mailing lists do not live forever.

-5: I share Mirja's curiosity about why the security considerations from 7464 were copied rather than just referenced.

[Ballot comment]
Is it really needed to copy the whole security considerations section of RFC7464 in this doc?

And why was this not registered within RFC7464?

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This type has been used for previous registrations of similar media type structured suffixes ([RFC6389]).
The title page indicates that this is Informational.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document defines and registers the “+json-seq” media type structured suffix in the IANA “Structured Syntax Suffix” registry based on the guidelines in RFC6838.

GeoJSON Text Sequences (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence/) is dependent on this registration - https://github.com/geojson/geojson-text-sequences/issues/19.
Working Group Summary
The registration was reviewed on [art] and [geojson]. There was no controversy (or need for formal WG adoption) since this is a simple registration.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
There are no existing implementations.
Brian Raymor is the Document Shepherd.
Alexey Melnikov is the Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and is confident that the updated document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. This is a simple registration of a media type structured suffix.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
None.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?
It represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No ID nits were identified.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not relevant.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary.
No.
(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The Document Shepherd confirms that this document follows the RFC6838 registration process and includes the completed template.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
Not relevant.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not relevant.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the Structured Syntax Suffix Registry located at:

a single, new registration is to be made as follows:

Name: JSON Text Sequence

+suffix: +json-seq

References: [ RFC 7464 ]

Encoding considerations: See [ RFC 7464 ]

Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +json-seq SHOULD be as specified for "application/json-seq". (At publication of this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for "application/json-seq".)

The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+json-seq" SHOULD be processed as follows:

For cases defined in +json-seq, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +json-seq rules, then process as specified in +json-seq.

For cases defined in +json-seq, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +json-seq rules, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+json-seq".

For cases not defined in +json-seq, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+json-seq".

Interoperability considerations: n/a

Security considerations: See [ RFC7464 ]

Contact: Applications and Real-Time Area Working Group (art@ietf.org)

Author/Change controller: The Applications and Real-Time Area Working Group. IESG has change control over this registration.

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-12-08. 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


  Structured Syntax Suffixes for media types allow other media types to
  build on them and make it explicit that they are built on an existing
  media type as their foundation.  This specification defines and
  registers "json-seq" as a structured syntax suffix for JSON Text
  Sequences.

Note to Readers

  This draft should be discussed on the art mailing list [1].

  Online access to all versions and files is available on github [2].




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix/ballot/


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