Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-09.txt> (XML Media Types) to Proposed Standard

From: Paul Grosso <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:35:44 -0600

On 2014-03-03 04:04, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
> WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
> - 'XML Media Types'
>    <draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-09.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>   . . .

Dear IETF,

The W3C XML Core Working Group has continued to follow the progress
of XML Media Types (aka 3023-bis) over that last year (and more).

We have reviewed almost all of the
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-0*.txt
drafts and would like to support its transition to Proposed Standard.

Our Working Group members have made several comments on earlier
drafts as well as reviewed the comments and dispositions of
others as evidenced by
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html
and
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/06-comments.html
and various emails archived in our groups mailing list at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Sep/0010
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Sep/0019
and various other threads.

We look forward to having an updated replacement to RFC 3023.

Paul Grosso, co-chair
for the W3C XML Core Working Group

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:47:51 +0000

I wonder if the IETF has the authority to do what is called for in s8.2,
where the change controller for +xml is changed from IETF to W3C.  I am
minded of the change of the MIB module for Ethernet in the First Mile
from IETF to IEEE which started off saying something similar but ended
up as RFC7124 which documents more what the IETF is giving up, leaving
the IEEE to document what it is picking up. I appreciate that we have a
post from Paul Grosso to this list saying that the W3C approves of this
I-D, but then, as ever, he, like me, is contributing as an individual.
Should we have something more formal from the W3C to confirm that they
are taking up the burden of responsibility for this?

Note that s8.2 may not be wholy clear to those who have not followed
discussions of this on the list.

RFC6838 says that a registration of a suffix must contain
"Person (including contact information) authorized to change this suffix
registration."

RFC6839, which this updates, says in s4.1
"   Author/Change controller:  The Apps Area Working Group.  IESG has
change control over this registration. " which is the current status.

This I-D, in s8.2, says
"Change controller:  The XML specification is a work product of the
World Wide Web Consortium's XML Core Working Group.  The W3C has change
control over this specification."

Discussion on the list clarified that in the second sentence, 'this
specification' refers to the specification of the registration of '+xml'
and not to the specification of  XML itself!

The insertion of the first sentence in s8.2 of this I-D may seem a
little odd, but RFC3023, which this I-D supersedes, says
"The W3C, and the W3C XML Core Working Group, have change control over
the XML specification."
which is interesting but irrelevant, IMO.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF-Announce" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:04 AM
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-09.txt> (XML
Media Types) to Proposed Standard

> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2014-03-17. Exceptionally, comments may
be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>    This specification standardizes three media types --
application/xml,
>    application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd --
>    for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the
>    Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and text/
>    xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective
application/
>    types.  This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for
>    naming media types outside of these five types when those media
types
>    represent XML MIME entities.
>
>
> Note that this document has normative references to eight W3C
documents,
> as well as two Informational RFCs.  The Informational RFCs are:
> 1. RFC 2781, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646"
> 2. RFC 6839, "Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes"
>
> Both of those documents should be added to the downref registry
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry) after
this last
> call completes.
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes/
>
> Once IESG discussion begins, it can be tracked via
>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes/ballot
/
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>