IETF 121 - MEDIAMAN WG

Scribe: Hans-Joerg Happel

Introduction, Note Well, scribe, agenda bash

Status of WG documents

-toplevel and -haptics are in RFC editor queue.

Result of consensus call on -suffixes

Consensus that the draft represents WG consensus, but also consensus
that it should be held for incorporation in -6838bis, not published as
RFC.

Result of consensus call on adopting -6838bis

• John Klensin: Acknowledgements of 6838 should cover previous draft
  authors
  • Agreement in the room

Discussion of topics on -6838bis

• Mark N.: Incorporate documents one by one and publish as drafts to
  highlight the diffs

  • Probably single out larger issues for discussion in separate
    drafts
  • First revision in the next few weeks (Mark+Pete)
  • Murray: Can this be finished before March? (to IESG)
    • Mark: possible

• Manu S.: Suffixes draft: lot's of copy/pasted content in the
  structured suffixes registry. When to clean this up?

  • Mark: Will be looked at while working on draft. Actual cleaning
    by IANA once draft in finished.

  • Instructions will be captured in Separate I-D or as issues or
    PRs

  • Brian C.: Consensus by exhaustion on suffixes draft was not
    good. Does not want content to be added as-is into 6838bis.
    Document contains a lot more than was discussed.

    • Mark: How can editors interpret consensus state?
    • Harald: Suffix draft consensus would need substantial
      evidence to be overturned
    • Pete: Asks Brian to name controversial/uncontroveral parts
      (Brian is OK with that)
    • Michael Jones: Supports Pete's point. Asks editors to do
      additions as PRs for ease of diff
    • Murray: On consensus by exhaustion, to clarify, was
      following regular process

• General discussion on procedures

  • Pete R.: Might want to bundle PRs in draft and ping list

  • Darrel M.: Challenging for WG to judge semantics of mediatypes -
    should probably be improved process-wise to assist designeated
    experts (DE's)

    • Brian C.: Kind of consultation requirement might be added

  • Deb C.: Difficult situation for DE's to judge consequences of
    change requests. Still, has no recommendations.

• Murray K.: Appeals procedure could be more crisp (where appeal lands
  etc.)

  • Murray will open issue

• Rahul G.: Many old registrations in RFC 2046 miss descriptions or
  lack structure

  • Can propose issue or PR
  • Pete R.: Let's look for stale references in registry
  • Mark N.: HTTP WG experience -> empowering experts to maintain
    registry (uncontroversial edit) worked well

• Rahul G.: who will look at outdated mediatypes (radio/mpeg?)

  • Harald A.: Need to be looked case-by-case. DE responsible?
  • Murray: DE's can ask IESG for guidance
  • Alexey M. Ask IANA for change (will prompt DE)
  • Harald A.: Rahul should raise issues w mediatypes he seems by
    himself (send to IANA)

AOB

• Darrel: Recently incoming bulk mediatype registrations from a single
  party. Is that reasonable for the group?

  • Mark: In other registries developed guidance to require seeing
    some adoption; avoid specific names

  • Manu: Have we asked for reasons of why so many types?

    • Darrel: Discussion with registrant suggested
    • Respond as a group instead of putting Darell in the spot?

  • Pete: Utilitze 3GPP liaison (Orie)?

Wrap up, action items, and followup

Actions items

• Mark/Pete will provide PRs and/or drafts and ping mailing list.