FYI to add to this thread, there is now a Github PR with text for the "+cose" structured syntax suffix registration.
https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/pull/277/files (Adding COSE WG on the cc here) Regards Esko From: media-types <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Darrel Miller Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 03:27 To: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [media-types] [IANA #1275306] Request for cose registration in the Structured Syntax Suffixes registry Manu, I agree that "Specification Required" seems a better fit for the Structured Syntax Suffix registry based on precedent. The other issue that came out of the thread that Martin pointed to is that it is not clear if registration of a suffix using IETF as the Change Controller requires the registration template to be included in the referenced specification. This is a requirement for media type registrations, but I could not find equivalent instructions for suffixes. If there are to be changes proposed to RFC6838, it would be great to get that point clarified. Darrel ________________________________ From: media-types <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Manu Sporny Martin Dürst wrote: > We should cross-check that the registration procedure is clear. I've done a cross-check of the registration procedure for structured suffixes. The guidance given in RFC6838 is: > The primary guideline for whether a structured type name suffix is > registrable is that it be described by a readily available description, > preferably within a document published by an established standards-related > organization, and for which there's a reference that can be used in a > Normative References section of an RFC. In the [thread referred to above](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/8-df-mVwr_5f5isy7FwGyT7ei2c/), Amanda asked this question: > If I'm reading this correctly, this raises another question: at > https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix, we say that > the registration procedure is Expert Review. Should this be listed as > Specification Required (which requires both a publicly-available spec and > expert review) instead? AFAICT, Amanda is correct. RFC6838 is clear on the specification requirements for registration of structured suffixes, the registry should be "Specification Required"... not "Expert Review" as it is now. I also cross-checked all the structured suffix entries and all of them point to a specification, so even though the registry claims that it's "Expert Review"... the registrants and Experts have been operating as if it was "Specification Required" for the past 11 years. :) > How should we describe the registration procedure for suffixes? I'm not sure anything needs to change, other than ensuring that the "Registration Procedure" for the structured suffix registry changes to "Specification Required", which is already supported by RFC6838. What is the process to make that "bug fix" change to the structured suffix registry? -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ _______________________________________________ media-types mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
