Minutes IETF125: mediaman: Wed 03:30
minutes-125-mediaman-202603180330-01

MEDIAMAN 2026-03-18

1. Introduction, Note Well, scribe, agenda bash (5 min)

   • Harald Alvestrand indicated he is retiring, likely his last IETF
     meeting
   • Scribe is Kim Davies

2. Overarching issue: Depend on IANABIS output or not? - Harald
   Alvestrand

   • IANABIS met yesterday, reviewed 8216bis, 7120bis, and
     early-registries draft. Documents have sections that could be
     referenced rather than having our own documents that define own
     procedures. What do we think?
     • Pete Resnick: Are they moving at a high rate of speed,
       willing to lock document to theirs? Like the idea of not
       repeating, but if they are moving slowly may as well
       publish.
     • Mark Nottingham: On balance, want to use a reference, even
       if it involves some waiting. Not in a rush to publish our
       documents. For standards tree, I think we should use early
       allocation; for others we may want provisional registration.
     • Amanda Baber: Are we looking at the early allocation process
       for SDOs? (Yes.)
     • Harald: Reasonable consensus on waiting in order to
       reference ianabis documents. To be confirmed on mailing
       list.

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

   • Issue 80, do we want to replace early allocation procedure?
     What we just discussed.

   • Issue 70, a number of provisional types in the standards
     tree, if we want to stop them need a solution for existing ones.
     A number could be moved to early registrations. Older
     registrations from other SDOs, could check with registrants.
     Small number (4) from individuals, what to do with them? Is it
     the WG or DE to decide?

     • Harald: If we move to 7120bis, can retire those that don't
       quality. Registrant should find someone to sponsor it.
       (7120bis requires it to be a recognized SDO, several
       registrants are not.) I think we should lose them.
     • Andy Newton: Are we saying we are OK getting rid of them?
     • Harald: Make the applicant show an SDO is using them. If
       they can't, delete them.
     • Andy: Do we know if they are in use?
     • Mark: Identified some interesting registrations. Thinks it
       would be a case-by-case thing.
     • Amanda: We can dig up tickets, usually there is AD
       approvals, we can review the correspondence.
     • Mark: Next step, do a bit more research and come up with a
       proposal.

   • Issue 78, if we get rid of provisional media types, can
     close the issue.

   • Issue 86, point to early allocation. Issue is for MEDIAMAN
     not IANABIS.

     • Harald: Maybe we can live without it. (Would simplify
       things.)
     • Pete: Can this be folded into IANABIS instead of having us
       go into it? (At current, community process is specific to
       us.)

   • Issue 85, who does change controller approval - DE or IANA?

     • Amanda: IANA handles this for every registry. If we have
       problems can ask the DE for help.
     • Jonathan Lennox: Do we need to say anything or just defer to
       IANA process?

   • Issue 71, do we have enough information? Suggested adding a
     section, enumerating the contact fields and explaining them.

     • Pete: Can we just refer to IANABIS about contact
       information? (Most don't have 3 kinds of contacts.)
     • Harald: There is Section 9.5 in 8126bis. (That's general
       advice, doesn't help making people map that to our
       document.)

   • Issue 63, about readible available specifics, should we
     wait to see how this develops in IANABIS?

     • Jonathan: We should do what IANA says unless it turns out to
       be inappropriate. (Couple of issues: the for-pay aspect, and
       whether the specification is stable. If there are multiple
       policies we have to decide. Does it have to be published by
       an SDO? Is Github OK? Seems premature to talk about now.)

   • Issue 81, Have a multi-layer system, do we need to have a
     separate registry for namespaces (e.g. microsoft- and
     vnd.goog.)

     • Jonathan: Don't think it needs formalization. Expert can use
       their judgment. (If it is separate registry, Microsoft
       presumably has a change controller that IANA would check.)
       In most cases you can tell who it is coming from. (Who makes
       the judgment call? IANA or DE?)
     • Amanda: Is it sufficient to show they control a Microsoft
       email address? (Lots of interesting questions here.)
     • Kim Davies: What are the stakes if we get it wrong? (Offend
       sense of tidyness)
     • Harald: May upset a company.
     • Does not appear to need formalization

   • Mark and Pete will incorporate feedback into document and also
     wait on IANABIS.

4. Charter item Reviewer's Checklist - Harald Alvestrand

   • Is this fine? Do we want to drop it from the charter?
   • Amanda: The text on the IANA page provided by Ned, augmented by
     Alexei and Murray. Wasn't written by IANA.
   • Its on the form rather than RFC text so it is more easily
     changeable.
   • Sense seems to be to let IANA and ADs update it when
     appropriate.

5. Wrap up, action items, and followup

   • Thank you for coming.