Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-09-11
Requested 2023-08-28
Authors Martin J. Dürst
I-D last updated 2023-09-05
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -03 by Antoine Fressancourt (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Antoine Fressancourt
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2023-09-05
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03.txt. These comments were written primarily for
the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s)
should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other
IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that
have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO

I found the following minor issues, which I think SHOULD be clarified before
publication: - Section 1.1 is not clear about what are the issues with the
media type registration process described in RFC 6838. An hint about an
explanation is only given at the end of section 3 when the author gives some
details about the history. I think the background section should better
highlight what are the main issues with RFC 6838 before defining an updated
registration procedure. - In section 2.1, the draft mentions that new top-level
type MUST be defined in a Standard Track RFC. This is a difference from section
3.1 in RFC 6838, which mentions that a media type can be registered with a
Standards Track, a BCP, an Informational or an Experimental track document as
soon as there is an IETF consensus, and I think it should be highlighted more
clearly. - This may be a layperson misunderstanding, but the draft does not
mention the concept of Registration trees introduced in section 3 of RFC 6838,
while I think some examples that justify the writing of the current draft could
have been addressed using a method described there. For instance, in section 3
of the draft, the example of the undocumented use of the 'font' top level type
could have been adressed by having the actors using this type use 'vnd.font' or
'x.font' instead to prove the point that this top tier media type is useful
while 'font' was documented in a draft following the Standards track. I wonder
why the author does not encourage the use of a transitory faceted media type to
accompany the registration of a new top-tier media type.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document: - In section 3, on page 7, 'recommended' should be used
rather than 'recommened' at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the section.