Subject: [Lager] media-type registration request review

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:39:50 -0500

Hello,
  draft-ietf-lager-specification requests the registration of a new 
media-type. The document has passed WGLC and we would like to have a 
review of the request. Herein the extract of the media-type form from 
the draft. Thanks in advance for the review

Marc, lager wg co-chair

<extract>
11.1.  Media Type Registration

    The media type "application/lgr+xml" should be registered to denote
    transmission of label generation rulesets that are compliant with
    this specification, in accordance with [RFC6838].

    Type name: application

    Subtype name: lgr+xml

    Required parameters: None.

    Optional parameters: charset (as for application/xml per [RFC7303])

    Security considerations: As for application/xml per [RFC7303]

    Interoperability considerations: As for application/xml per 
[RFC7303]

    Published specification: This document.

    Applications which use this media type: Software using label
    generation rulesets, including registry applications and client
    validators.

    Additional information: None.

    Magic number: None.

    File extension: .lgr or .xml

    Macintosh file-type code: None.

    Object Identifiers: None.

    Intended Usage: Common

    Personal and email address for further information: See the Authors
    of this document.

    Change Controller: IESG
</extract>

---

From: Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:43:42 -0800

On 3/4/2016 11:23 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> media-type. The document has passed WGLC and we would like to have a review
>> of the request. Herein the extract of the media-type form from the draft.
>> Thanks in advance for the review
>>
>> Marc, lager wg co-chair
>>
>> <extract>
> I suggesting moving section 12 of the draft here.
>
>>     Interoperability considerations: As for application/xml per [RFC7303]
>>
> Can you be more specific, as the registry information will be stored
> and viewed out of the context of the LAGER WG. Maybe "Software using
> IDNA label generation rulesets"? That's just a guess on my part, as
> I'm not very familiar with nomenclature in that space.

The label generation rulesets specification is not limited to IDNA.

Software using label generation rulesets for internationalized 
identifiers, such IDNs, including...

> .xml is associated with application/xml so I'd just stick with .lgr.

Apparently there are some other media types that use .xml., so what are 
the conventions?

A./
> Looks good otherwise.

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:07:08 +0900

> I suggesting moving section 12 of the draft here.

I don't think that's necessary, and it would remove the "Security 
Considerations" section that's needed in every RFC. I'd suggest to 
replace "As for application/xml per [RFC7303]" with something such as
"See the security considerations for application/xml in [RFC7303] and 
the specific security considerations for Label Generation Rulesets in 
XML in RFC XXXX (RFC Editor/IANA, please replace XXXX with the final 
number of this document)".

>>     Published specification: This document.

The template will be stored independently of the containing RFC, so 
instead of "This document", use something like "RFC XXXX (RFC 
Editor/IANA, please replace XXXX with the final number of this document)

Regards,   Martin.

> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
> .
>