Registration of Media types proposed by LC
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
rden at loc.gov
Fri Mar 6 15:59:13 CET 2009
Thanks much, Martin. Based on your response I agree, the RFC route is the
way to go. --Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden at loc.gov>;
<ietf-types at iana.org>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Cc: "Sally H. McCallum" <smcc at loc.gov>; "Rebecca Guenther" <rgue at loc.gov>;
"Clay Redding" <cred at loc.gov>; <ntra at loc.gov>; <mcundiff at loc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: Registration of Media types proposed by LC
> 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
> 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
>>These are proposed by the Library of Congress on behalf of several
>>constituencies including the library/bibliographic and metadata
>>These all correspond to standards maintained at the Library of Congress.
>>Please see the document at:
>>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). $B!&(B Notice of a
>>potential media type registration in the standards tree MUST be sent to
>>the "ietf-types at iana.org" mailing list for review.$B!&(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$B!&!V(B IESG approval in
>>effect submits the registration to the IANA. There is no need for an
>>additional registration request.$B!&(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.)
>>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
More information about the Ietf-types