Subject: [arcmedia] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-arcmedia-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:41:30 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-arcmedia-00-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-arcmedia/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a few nits:

In this text:

We create top-level media types only rarely, only with Standards Track
RFCs,
and only when one or more media types get special (or common, in the
case
of more than one) handling that does not fit under an existing top-level
media type.  RFC6838 defines this process.

<< I found myself wondering if archive met these criteria. I guess it
does, and I guess that the RFC6838 process will be used, but I'm just
guessing both of those. If the charter said that more plainly, I'd wonder
less. >>

In these two paragraphs:

The working group will use draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type as its
initial input.  It will specify rules for registering subtypes under
that
new top-level type, considering at a minimum the issue of type suffixes,
fragment identifiers, and internationalization.  The W3C TAG work on
packaging and archives, currently in progress, will also be considered.

Either in that same document or in one of more follow-on documents, it
will
produce an initial set of registrations under the new top-level media
type.

<< I'm guessing "that same document" is
draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type, but "The W3C TAG work on packaging
and archives" is the closest possibility. Maybe this could be clearer?

In this text: 

The main document will include an Implementation Status section,
described
by RFC6982, to record known projects that will either produce or consume
content using the new media type.  If by the first milestone there
appears
to be no implementations of the new media type expected, the working
group
will fold having produced no RFCs.

<< Perhaps "the working group will conclude"? I know what you mean, but
"fold" may not be as obvious for ESL types. >>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:46:44 -0500

> guessing both of those. If the charter said that more plainly, I'd wonder

Hm.  Of course, we wouldn't be doing this if we thought it didn't meet
those criteria.  But see below.

> and archives" is the closest possibility. Maybe this could be clearer?

I've addressed both of the above comments with a change in the
paragraph that mentions the "seantek" draft.  See if you think it's
all clear now.

Barry

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:31:08 -0600

> paragraph that mentions the "seantek" draft.  See if you think it's

Yes, and thank you!