Registration of media type text/3gpp-tt

[Colin Perkins]

On 10 Oct 2004, at 01:38, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:

>> 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.

The entire point of my message was to explain what has been said in AVT 
and to clarify that -- as should be obvious to anyone who attends IETF 
meetings -- nobody is obliged to comment.

Colin