W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2003

Update: experiences with SOAP media type registration

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 17:44:28 -0800
Message-Id: <42FFCE95-0D9F-11D8-802A-00039396E15A@bea.com>
Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org

Since sending the message below, the IESG considered and rejected the  
registration of the application/soap+xml media type, apparently because  
the draft did not actually contain its registration (instead, it  
referenced the registration in the SOAP specifications), and because it  
referenced works in progress (e.g., the SOAP 1.2 specifications, which  
were not REC at the time).

Unfortunately, the IESG did not notify the authors of the  
Internet-Draft of the decision made by e-mail; Ned Freed has said that  
the rejection was communicated to people "on the W3C concalls," but  
this information didn't filter down to the WG. (If anyone has  
information about this, please contact me; we still need to resolve the  
registration of application/soap+xml).

A note was placed in the IESG's Web datatracker[1], but this was a  
comment from another IESG member about the shortcomings of the Draft,  
not an actual decision regarding the status of the Draft, which was  
only updated after Ned discovered the omission and changed the  
document's status. No e-mail notification of any of this (except as  
below) has been received by the Draft's authors.

I (and therefore the WG) only found out about this because of e-mail  
discussion following from comments I made to regarding  
draft-freed-mime-p4-04; if I had not made those comments, I'm  
reasonably certain we still wouldn't know the status of the I-D.

I'd also note that the IESG appears to administer its responsibilities  
in a more informal fashion than the W3C does (e.g., the Draft wasn't  
added to the datatracker until September 11, e-mailing the authors of a  
Draft about its status isn't seen as necessary, and it's thought  
adequate notification of a problem when an IESG member comments without  
changing a Draft's status). As a result, it may be necessary to be in  
more constant contact with the IESG to ascertain the status of a  
particular Draft.

My recommendation to future W3C WGs that need to register media types  
would be to co-ordinate with the W3C liaison to get a periodic update  
of their Drafts' status from the IESG (anecdotal evidence shows that  
individual queries to members of the IESG are often not responded to).


1.   
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
command=view_id&dTag=8198&rfc_flag=0



On Sep 8, 2003, at 2:32 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> [ note that followups are set to public-ietf-w3c only]
>
> The XML Protocol Working Group, as part of its work, needs to register  
> the "application/soap+xml" media type with IANA. Although this task  
> has been shared by many people, I've been responsible for driving the  
> actual registration over the last few months. This note documents my  
> experiences with the registration process, as directed by an action  
> item given to me by the XML Protocol WG on 03 Sep 2003.
>
> Our approach to registration was informed by a number of sources:
>   1) WG members' previous experiences with media type registration  
> (myself, Mark Baker, Yves Lafon)
>   2) RFC2048, Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:  
> Registration Procedures
>   3) W3C guidelines (although we were not immediately aware of these)
>   4) Feedback from the IESG (or individuals comprising it or acting on  
> its behalf) and RFC Editor.
>
> Previous experiences were mixed; at times, the RFC Editor and/or IESG  
> appear to have operated under different procedures. Based on them, we  
> initially requested that the RFC Editor publish the I-D as an  
> Informational RFC, believing that any necessary clearance by the IESG  
> would be gained in due course. This proved not to be the case (see  
> timeline).
>
> RFC2048 is ambiguous from a process standpoint, regarding registration  
> of IETF-tree media types; it says;
>
> [[[
> 2.3.  Registration Procedure
>    [...]
>    For registration in the IETF tree, the normal IETF processes should
>    be followed, treating posting of an internet-draft and announcement
>    on the ietf-types list (as described in the next subsection) as a
>    first step.
>   [...]
> 2.3.2.  IESG Approval
>
>    Media types registered in the IETF tree must be submitted to the  
> IESG
>    for approval.
>
> 2.3.3.  IANA Registration
>
>    Provided that the media type meets the requirements for media types
>    and has obtained approval that is necessary, the author may submit
>    the registration request to the IANA, which will register the media
>    type and make the media type registration available to the  
> community.
> ]]]
>
> However, it does not indicate when in relation to RFC publication IESG  
> approval must be requested, nor does it say how to go about gaining  
> IESG approval.
>
>
> W3C guidelines <http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype> don't  
> specify the full process for RFC publication, and advise pinging the  
> IESG secretary; upon doing so, we encountered problems (see timeline).
>
>
> * Timeline
>   17 Jun 2003 - request for publication as an Internet-Draft sent to  
> internet-drafts (draft had been previously circulated on ietf-types  
> list, and changes to -03 were only editorial)
>   18 Jun 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
>   09 Jul 2003 - request for publication as an Informational RFC sent  
> to rfc-editor
>   10 Jul 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
>   21 Aug 2003 - rfc-editor feedback stating that IESG approval must be  
> requested by the author, and that the document's reference of a W3C  
> specification may not meet the publication requirement (see attached)
>   21 Aug 2003 - query sent to RFC Editor and IESG regarding proper  
> procedure and appropriate use of references to W3C materials (not  
> acknowledged or answered as of yet)
>   29 Aug 2003 - request for last call / approval by the IESG sent to  
> iesg-secretary
>   29 Aug 2003 - acknowledgement of receipt
>   08 Sep 2003 - Statement from bfuller@fortec.com that only an AD can  
> request a Last Call, and that there are procedural issues regarding  
> this type of publication.  (see attached)
>
> In short, the process for non-WG submitted IETF tree media type  
> registrations is unclear to both the RFC Editor and the IESG secretary  
> at this time.
>
>
> <draft-baker-soap-media-reg-03>
>
> <Re: [iesg-secretary #13379] Last Call for>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 20:44:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT