Re: Dissent: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use

At 12:53 PM 6/11/02 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>As I've noted earlier this could introduce a source of delay and confusion
>in the advancement of W3C specifications. Unless the TAG has determined
>that the IESG/IANA finds a section of a W3C specification to be an adequate
>registration request this means we'll have one version in a W3C
>specification, and one version published as an ietf-draft and subsequent
>Informational RFC contingent about IESG timing and discretion. (I noted it
>took ~6 months to publish the xmldsig requirements Informational RFC). The
>W3C will not be able to publish the CR until the IETF publishes the
>Informational RFC I presume? Which is unfortunate as implementation and
>operational experience might inform the media type registration, requiring
>a new Informational RFC.

I see no reason why a brief registration document should not defer to a W3C 
spec for the primary definition of a W3C-defined standard content-type.

Yes, RFC 2048 does say:
[[
    The "owner" of a media type registration in the IETF tree is assumed
    to be the IETF itself.  Modification or alteration of the
    specification requires the same level of processing (e.g.  standards
    track) required for the initial registration.
]]

but my understanding is that such a document could make normative reference 
to a W3C specification for its normative content.  RFC 2026 says:
[[
7.1.1  Incorporation of an Open Standard

    An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
    standard by reference.  For example, many Internet Standards
    incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2].
    Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available
    online.
]]

and I have received indication in another context that W3C recommendations 
qualify as "open standards" for the purposes of RFC 2026.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 14:29:50 UTC