[ 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.
--
Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO BEA Systems