Meeting of MEDIAMAN WG - IETF 123, 2025-07-25
Scribe: Alexey Melnikov

Status of WG documents (5 min)

Haptics and "top level" are published as RFCs. Only rfc6838bis is the remaining active document.

Somebody noticed that we have "Security Checklist" in the list of milestones. Current suggestion is to use a variant of what is on IANA's website (in the media type registration form).

Status of -6838bis (30 min) - Mark Nottingham

Mark Nottingham reviews through the issue tracker.

Issue #19 Bucket format parametrs

Magnus: Bucket format RFC (RFC 6381) recommends some parameters for container media types.
Alexey: Seems sensible, especially as a reminder for designated experts.
Resolution: PR requested, further discussion in tracker.

Issue #7 Grandfathering requirements

Mark: Ready to close
Alexey: the change is to recommend using of "community process" registration option for grandfathering instead of IESG approval. Seems reasonable, considering that IESG wouldn't have more knowledge on this.
Resolution: Accept close

Brian Campbell: "Grandfathering" is not inclusive language.
Resolution: open a new ticket for the term (#54).

Issue #10 Appeal procedure for DE decisions?

Mark: it is Ok to reference the current RFC for this purpose.

Jonathan Lennox: ask IANABIS WG about handling of appeals and use it here?
Alexey: use ART ADs before full IESG?
Discussion with Mark: IESG can always ask ART ADs. So no change to the document.
Resolution: No change.

Issue #13 Acknowledgements

Some changes have been made, more needed.
Resolution: Keep it open

Issue #15 Override of change controller

Resolution: Close with no action
Orie is Ok with that

Issue #18 - RTP payload formats

Mark: RTP IANA registry was closed, but some issues remained.
Harald: Encoding: "framed" is approximately right.
Mark: add an extra column for RTP or metadata on the website? I object, as it is not generic to all media types.
Magnus: maybe I can go back to AVTCORE and ask them to reevaluate the decision to close the other RTP specific registry?

Resolution: close with no action, the current IANA registration template allows for extra information, like "restriction on usage". Magnus is Ok with this.

Issue #20 - Instructions for other SDOs

Murray: did IANA complain about this?
Mark: W3C had some issues in the past, until they fixed their process and published their media type procedure on their website
Murray: can we use their text?
Mark/Alexey: no, too W3C specific.

Mark: a side note: clarify that the list of SDOs approved by IESG is only for "standards tree media types" and not for other purposes?

Several: Ask IANA if they are Ok with this?

Pete: put some text into IANA Considerations to alert IANA, and it can go away during publication.

Action: also remove "blocking publication" git tag for this issue

Resolution: Add an IANA note to draft, don't block

Issue #21 More detailed change procedures

In git: Suggested text about reassignment when not resposive.

Question: what if we know if the Change Controller is dead? Do we need 4 weeks for this?

Action: adopt Mark's text, without 4 week note.

Issue #23 - Community format change controller

Mark: Suggestion to use "IESG"
Harald: what if a specific community change owner cannot be found?
Further discussion: rough consensus to allow DE to decide, with "IESG" being the default (or when can't decide)?

Mark: Speaking for experience from managing other registries: it might be quite uncomfortable for a DE to decide on this.
Mark: also, what is the insentive that we create for organizations that squat? Are they getting standards tree registrations for free and get change control?

Further discussion: not quite ready to close this yet.

Rahul: media type templates for media types from RFC 2046?
Alexey: I started working on this, but no draft yet.

Resolution: Continue discussion

Issue #24 - Coordination with previous registrar of +-suffixed types

Long discussion that resulted in rough agreement that the merged text (currently in the draft) is not reflecting rough consensus.

Don't tie DE's hand.

Resolution: Text proposal needed.

Issue #38 - Early allocation

Add a reference to RFC 7120. This is separate process from Provisional Registrations.

Rahul: early allocations from other SDOs?
Jonathan Lennox: suggest that rfc7120bis should be clarified to talk about early allocations from other SDOs.

Alexey: raising issue that the text that allows IESG approval of standards tree registrations from other RFC Streams was lost.
Mark: that was not intentional, please raise an issue.

This was the extent of issues discussed in the meeting.