Hi Alexey, Just a ping on this; thank you.
Best regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist On Wed May 07 13:50:30 2025, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > Thank you for your review. Please see our comments below. > > Regards, > Jasdip & Tom > > > From: Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] <drafts-expert-review- > [email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: [regext] Re: [IANA #1414868] expert review for draft-ietf- > regext-rdap-geofeed (media-type-structured-suffix) > On 02/05/2025 18:35, David Dong via RT wrote: > > Dear Alexey Melnikov, Darrel Miller (cc: regext WG), > > > > Following up on this; as the designated experts for the Structured > Syntax Suffixes registry, can you review the proposed registration in > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-09 for us? Please see > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed/ > > > > The due date was March 28th. > > > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, > we'll make the registration at: > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix/ > > > > Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewer, we’ll act on the > first response we receive. > > The suffix registration generally looks fine to me. One small thing: > > The registration template says: > > · Encoding Considerations: Same as "text/csv". > > If we look at at RFC 4180 that defines text/csv: > > Encoding considerations: > > > > As per section 4.1.1. of RFC 2046 [3], this media type uses CRLF > > to denote line breaks. However, implementors should be aware that > > some implementations may use other values. > > This is stricly speaking is not a compliant definition for this field, > because valid values are "7bit", "8bit", "binary" and "framed". I > think clarifying that this is "binary", because lines over 1000 octets > are allowed by the format. > > > [JS] Right. Since the IANA registration for the “+csv” suffix > references RFC 7111 besides RFC 4180 and the “Encoding considerations” > in section 5.1 of RFC 7111 [1] starts with the “CSV MIME entities > consist of binary data [RFC6838].” sentence, we as authors would > prefer to keep the “Same as "text/csv".” text as-is to let the > implementors directly read the normative text from RFCs 4180 and 7111 > for encoding considerations. > Alternatively, to make it clearer, we could remove the RFC 4180 > reference from the “References” in the IANA registration to point to > encoding considerations (and the updated the text/csv media type > registration) from RFC 7111 only. > [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7111#page-9 _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
