RE: application/rdf+xml registration

At 06:52 17/03/04 -0500, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>Graham,
>
> > Can you please indicate how we should proceed?
>
>I'll shepherd this.

Thanks!

>   Since I'm not all that familiar with this history of
>the document, ...

The document is the product of a W3C working group [1], and the 
corresponding specifications have recently been published as Full W3C 
Recommendations [2], which corresponds approximately to IETF "Standard" 
status.

>... I'd prefer to use the procedures described in
>draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt.  That document is sitting in the RFC Editor's
>queue in anticipation of obsoleting RFC 2048.  I don't think that means
>anything specific to this document would change other than the reference to
>2048 (Ned -- would you agree?).

I think that will be fine, but (just checking)...

A potential nit is this:
[[
    As stated previously, standards tree registrations for media types
    defined in documents produced by other standards bodies MUST be
    described by a formal standards specification produced by that body.
    Such specifications MUST contain an appropriate media type
    registration template. Additionally, the copyright on the
    registration template MUST allow the IANA to copy it into the IANA
    registry.
]]
-- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt
    (section 3.2.9)

We were proceeding on the basis of the previous procedure, which required 
RFC publication for registration in the "Standards" (was: IETF) tree, so 
the RDF specifications do not themselves contain a media type registration 
template.  Hence the separate RFC publication.  Pro tem, a copy of the 
registration draft is published on the W3C web site [3] and referenced by 
the RDF specifications, but the intent has always been that the IANA 
registry would provide the definitive link.

If it's OK that the (proto-)RFC will constitute "a formal standards 
specification produced by that body", then I see no problem with what you 
propose.

>There is one other thing that I found confusing.  The registration template
>includes this text:
>
>Optional parameters: charset
>
>    Same as charset parameter of application/xml.
>
>Encoding considerations:
>
>    Same as charset parameter of application/xml.
>
>Yet there is no mention of a reference to RFC 3023, the specification that
>includes the registration template for application/xml.  There should
>probably be one.

Oops, I should have spotted that.  Thanks.  That's a small change.

>Anyway, we can treat this document as an individual submission to the IESG
>for publication as an Informational document as you requested.  That means
>I'll adopt it, request an IETF-wide last call (consider my comments above
>last call comments), and we'll follow the usual IESG review and approval
>procedures from there.

Ah, OK... I hadn't anticipated that IETF last-call was needed for 
this  (but I don't see any problem with that).  Then I guess it would make 
sense to include the RFC 3023 reference after LC?

As a matter of procedure, if any issues are raised during the IETF last 
call that we can show were duly considered during the W3C last call, would 
you consider that to be an adequate "defence"?  (I have one issue in mind 
concerning removal of some text from an earlier version of this 
registration draft, which has been the subject of some ongoing debate, but 
which I think really represents a rathole that we've adequately explored.)

#g
--

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/

[2] http://www.w3.org/News/2004#item14

[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/mediatype-registration
Cited as:  [RDF-MIME-TYPE]
MIME Media Types, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This 
document is http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/. The registration 
for application/rdf+xml is archived at 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/mediatype-registration.



------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 11:04:55 UTC