Registration of Media types proposed by LC

[Martin Duerst]

Hello Ray,

You could avoid writing an RFC if the actual standard contains
the registration template, and if this template has been reviewed
by the ietf-types list during development of that standard, and
comments on this list have been taken into account.

An example of this would be
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-emma-20071211/#media-type-registration.

In your case, the situation is different. The document containing
the registring templates is a simple ad-hoc Word document.

[Also, on the home page for each of these formats, it is difficult
to find an actual standards document as would e.g. be the case
for the IETF, W3C, ISO, and so on. In some sense of 'formal',
a schema document very much counts as a formal specification,
but my guess is that the term "formal specification" used in
RFC 4288 has a different meaning, more along "formal standards
document" as e.g. an RFC on the Standards Track would be for
the IETF.]

What I would suggest is that you turn your current Word document
into an Internet-Draft and proceed towards an RFC, so that the
registration templates have a permanent form.

Regards,    Martin.

At 07:01 09/03/06, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>The following media types are proposed for registration on the standards tree: 
> 
>application/mods+xml
>application/mads+xml
>application/mets+xml
>application/marcxml+xml
>application/sru+xml
> 
>These are proposed by the Library of Congress on behalf of several constituencies including the library/bibliographic and metadata communities.
> 
>These all correspond to standards maintained at the Library of Congress.  
> 
>Please see the document  at:  <http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc>http://www.loc.gov/standards/register-media-types.doc    for background and for the filled-out template as required by RFC 4288.
>
>
>According to RFC 4288, $BE3(Begistration of a new media type or types starts with the construction of a registration proposal.$BH"(B 
> 
>This correspondence together with the above referenced document is intended to serve as construction of the proposal.  
> 
>RFC 4288 further states: $BE1(Broposals for media types registered in the standards tree by the IETF itself MUST be published as RFCs.  Standards tree registrations for media types defined in documents produced by other standards bodies MUST be  described by a formal standards specification produced by that body.$BH"(B
> 
> Formal specifications are cited in the referenced document for each media type.  So may I infer that an RFC is not necessary?
> 
>Further ....  $BE1(Broposed registrations in the standards tree by other standards  bodies should be communicated to the IESG (at iesg at ietf.org) and to the ietf-types list (at ietf-types at iana.org). $B)e(B  Notice of a potential media type registration in the standards tree MUST be sent to the "ietf-types at iana.org" mailing list for review.$BGî(B
> 
>Thus I an sending this correspondence to iesg at ietf.org  and <mailto:ietf-types at iana.org>ietf-types at iana.org.
>  
>Further.... "Provided that the media type meets all of the relevant requirements and has obtained whatever approval is necessary, the author may submit the registration request to the IANA$B)e*"(B IESG approval in effect submits the registration to the IANA. There is no need for an additional registration request.$BGî(B
> 
>Based on this I am not sure what further steps if any I need to take, so I await guidance.  (I have not previously registered a media type.)
>
>Thank you.
>
>Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> 
> 
> 


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp