I didn't realize that there's an expert reviewer in the loop,
even for the personal tree.
They declined my request. Oh well.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Forwarded message 1
Dear Dan,
Our MIME Media Type expert has reviewed your application and had a few comments.
The registration does not appear to be for a media type in the sense that he
understands the term. Rather, it is a container for data whose actual type is
specified externally. We have media types that work the other way around - the type is
specified locally but the data itself is remote and must be accessed over protocol.
But he doesn't believe we've ever approved one that works this way, and there has been
pushback from the IESG and the community on media types that act as containers.
Section 4.1 of RFC 4288 states that media types must function as such. He is not
convinced this qualifies and he doesn't think it is appropriate for the media types
reviewer to unilaterally expand the meaning of media types in this way.
He also does not think the security considerations are spelled out in sufficient
detail. For example, there are likely to be significant risks associated with the
ability to tamper with the format specification of a signed object, and all of the
integrity protection mechanisms provided are optional.
Our MIME Media Type expert is therefore rejecting this registration for the time
being. He would like, however, to see this brought up for discussion on the media
types mailing list. You can reach this mailing list by emailing ietf-types@iana.org.
If there's a clear community consensus there that this is OK and the IESG sees no
issue, the MIME Media Type will reconsider the proposal.
After review on the mailing list, if this type gets consensus for registration, please
resubmit a new application.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Nicole Rothstein
IANA