Registration of media type text/3gpp-tt

[ned.freed at mrochek.com]

> On 9 Oct 2004, at 17:27, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:
> ...
> > It isn't clear to me that this actually refers to the ietf-types list,
> > but perhaps that was stated in some other message. In any case, an
> > process that relies on someone on the ietf-types list saying something
> > is inherently broken and needs to be fixed.

> My original message to the AVT mailing list said:

> 	In future, as new RTP payload formats are developed, we will require
> 	expert review of the media type registration as part of the working
> 	group last call process. Please contact the chairs for guidance on the
> 	procedure for this review, when you believe your draft is ready for
> 	working group last call. We will not forward drafts to the IESG for
> 	publication unless they have received such review.
> 		[http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg04287.html]

> Several weeks later, when Jose asked for guidance on how the review
> should be conducted, and if it should occur before or in parallel with
> the working group last call, I respond:

> 	Before the working group last call. You should send a note to the
> 	<ietf-types at iana.org> mailing list (which was cc'd on much of the
> 	previous discussion) asking for review of the MIME registration, to
> 	ensure there are no objections.
> 		[http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg04520.html]

> This is consistent with section 5.1 of
> draft-freed-media-type-reg-01.txt, which states that the list is
> appropriate for initial community review of media types:

>     In all cases notice of a potential media type registration MAY be
>     sent to the "ietf-types at iana.org" mailing list for review.  This
>     mailing list has been established for the purpose of reviewing
>     proposed media and access types.

>     The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback
>     on the choice of type/subtype name, the unambiguity of the references
>     with respect to versions and external profiling information, and a
>     review of any interoperability or security considerations.  The
>     submitter may submit a revised registration, or abandon the
>     registration completely, at any time.

> We place no greater requirement or obligation on this list than does
> your document, and as I said in my reply to Jose (and this list)
> yesterday "If no comments result after a reasonable time period, so be
> it".

Again, that's fine as long as it is understood that nobody is
obliged to comment.

				Ned