Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree
draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree
Network Working Group M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft 17 September 2023
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 20 March 2024
Allowing Community Registrations in the Standards Tree
draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-00
Abstract
Over time, it has become clear that there are media types which have
the character of belonging in the standards tree (because they are
not associated with any one vendor or person), but are not published
by a standards body. This draft suggests an update to [RFC6838] to
allow their registration.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 March 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Nottingham Expires 20 March 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Community Registrations September 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Standards Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Community Formats in the Standards Tree . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
[RFC6838] only allows registrations in the standards tree from the
IETF and other "recognized standards-related organizations."
Over time, it has become clear that there are media types which have
the character of belonging in the standards tree (because they are
not associated with any one vendor or person), but are not published
by a standards body.
To address this shortcoming, Section 2 suggests a drop-in replacement
for Section 3.1 of [RFC6838].
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Standards Tree
The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the
Internet community. Registrations in the standards tree MUST be
either:
1. in the case of registrations associated with IETF specifications,
approved directly by the IESG, or
2. registered by a recognized standards-related organization using
the "Specification Required" IANA registration policy [RFC5226]
(which implies Expert Review), or
3. approved by the Designated Expert(s) as identifying a "community
format", as described in Section 2.1.
Nottingham Expires 20 March 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Community Registrations September 2023
The first procedure is used for registrations from IETF Consensus
documents, or in rare cases when registering a grandfathered (see
Appendix A) and/or otherwise incomplete registration is in the
interest of the Internet community. The registration proposal MUST
be published as an RFC. When the registration RFC is in the IETF
stream, it must have IETF Consensus, which can be attained with a
status of Standards Track, BCP, Informational, or Experimental.
Registrations published in non-IETF RFC streams are also allowed and
require IESG approval. A registration can be either in a stand-alone
"registration only" RFC or incorporated into a more general
specification of some sort.
In the second case, the IESG makes a one-time decision on whether the
registration submitter represents a recognized standards-related
organization; after that, a Media Types Reviewer (Designated Expert
or a group of Designated Experts) performs the Expert Review as
specified in this document. Subsequent submissions from the same
source do not involve the IESG. The format MUST be described by a
formal standards specification produced by the submitting standards-
related organization.
The third case is described in Section 2.1.
Media types in the standards tree MUST NOT have faceted names, unless
they are grandfathered in using the process described in Appendix A.
The "owner" of a media type registered in the standards tree is
assumed to be the standards-related organization itself.
Modification or alteration of the specification uses the same level
of processing (e.g., a registration submitted on Standards Track can
be revised in another Standards Track RFC, but cannot be revised in
an Informational RFC) required for the initial registration.
Standards-tree registrations from recognized standards-related
organizations are submitted directly to the IANA, where they will
undergo Expert Review [RFC5226] prior to approval. In this case, the
Expert Reviewer(s) will, among other things, ensure that the required
specification provides adequate documentation.
2.1. Community Formats in the Standards Tree
Some formats are interoperable (i.e., they are supported by more than
one implementation), but their specifications are not published by a
recognized standards-related organization. To accommodate these
cases, the Designated Expert(s) are empowered to approve
registrations in the standards tree that meet the following criteria:
* There is a well-defined specification for the format
Nottingham Expires 20 March 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Community Registrations September 2023
* That specification is not tied to or heavily associated with one
implementation
* The specification is freely available at a stable location
* There are multiple interoperable implementations of the
specification, or they are likely to emerge
* The requested name is appropriate to the use case, and not so
generic that it may be considered 'squatting'
* There is no conflict with IETF work or work at other recognised
SDOs (present or future)
* There is evidence of broad adoption
The Designated Expert(s) have discretion in applying these criteria;
in rare cases, they might judge it best to register an entry that
fails one or more.
Note that such registrations still go through preliminary community
review (Section 5.1), and decisions can be appealed (Section 5.3).
3. IANA Considerations
This draft introduces no new instructions for IANA.
4. Security Considerations
This draft does not introduce new security issues. Seriously.
5. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5226>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.
Nottingham Expires 20 March 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Community Registrations September 2023
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
Author's Address
Mark Nottingham
Prahran
Australia
Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Nottingham Expires 20 March 2024 [Page 5]
