W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > March 2005

RE: Request for approval/registration of application/xenc+xml

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:15:42 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050322163051.05d0c350@localhost>
To: "Scott Hollenbeck" <sah@428cobrajet.net>
Cc: jose.kahan@w3.org, w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org, 'Dan Connolly' <connolly@w3.org>, iesg@ietf.org, xml-encryption@w3.org

Hello Scott,

Sorry for the delay with this email. I had to do some serious
archeology for my answer.

At 23:11 05/03/15, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
 >Martin,
 >
 >I can't find any record of a media types review request in the ietf-types
 >archive.  Can you point me to the request?  I do see mention of the type
 >related to an old I-D named draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype, but that's not the
 >same thing as a specific request for review.

First, just a question of terminology:
In our side of the process, at
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#Planned,
it just says "Send an email to the mailing
list ietf-types@iana.org asking for comments on the Media Type section
of your specification". Is that enough, or should we use the term
"request for review" more explicitly there?

Second, my understanding is that the current version of our side
of this process at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmlenc-core-20021210/#sec-MediaType
is indeed based on the earlier draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype, and
incorporates the comment received on ietf-types. There was indeed
an I-D, but it was just a very short one, essentially just containing
a reference to the registration information already in the spec
itself. See for example
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00821.html
For whatever it's worth, strangely enough this email is not archived at
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2002-August/author.html.
I remember asking Harald about this, he suspected it might have to
do with only mails from subscribers in the list
being archived. (see separately forwarded mail)

So my understanding is that as far as I was able to reconstruct
what happened, this Media Type proposal was indeed sufficiently
reviewed on ietf-types@iana.org. Please tell us if you think
otherwise, and what the next steps should be in this case.

Regards,    Martin.


 >-Scott-
 >
 >> -----Original Message-----
 >> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
 >> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:39 AM
 >> To: Scott Hollenbeck
 >> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; xml-encryption@w3.org; jose.kahan@w3.org;
 >> Dan Connolly; w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org
 >> Subject: Request for approval/registration of application/xenc+xml
 >>
 >>
 >> Hello Scott,
 >>
 >> This is a request from W3C, for review and approval by the IESG
 >> and subsequent registration by IANA of the MIME media type
 >> application/xenc+xml.
 >>
 >> The registration template for this media type can be found in
 >> the XML Encryption Syntax and Processing specification, which
 >> is a W3C Recommendation, in Section 8:
 >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core/#sec-MediaType. This is a pointer
 >> to the last version of this specification.
 >> A pointer to the current version is
 >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmlenc-core-20021210/#sec-MediaType.
 >>
 >> On our side, this registration is following the process outlined at
 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#Planned, but
 >> due to some timing issues, the specification in question is already
 >> at the Recommedation stage. If we have to make corrections, we plan
 >> to do so through errata.
 >>
 >> The registration proposal has been discussed on the ietf-types
 >> list, and the registration information has been improved based
 >> on this input.
 >>
 >> When the registration is approved, or for questions, please make
 >> sure that you copy Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org> and Dan Connolly
 >> <connolly@w3.org>.
 >>
 >> Regards,    Martin.
 >>
 >> 
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 10:20:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:23 GMT