[Fwd: Last Call: draft-goncalves-rfc3534bis (Ogg Media Types) to Proposed Standard]

Hi,

This IETF last call is for a document that is a updated media type 
registration. Please review within the IETF last call period.

Thanks

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: draft-goncalves-rfc3534bis (Ogg Media Types) to Proposed Standard
Date: 2008-06-03 16:38:30 GMT

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:

Request review: draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01.txt

The AVT working group requests review for the updated audio/g7291  
media type defined in draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01.txt.  This  
draft updates the media type registration with a new parameter to  
signal the use of DTX frames (G.729.1 Annex C), and also specifies  
how this format is framed for use with RTP.

This draft is currently in working group last call, so we would be  
grateful if comments could be made by 20 June 2008.

Thanks,
Colin (AVT co-chair)

Registration of media type FO and ZFO

Hello,

I wanted to ask you whether there is any progress or comment on our 
registration proposal.

Thank you in advance for you reply.

Best regards,

Jakub Hytka
Product manager

Software602 a.s.
TEL: 222 011 296, 222 011 602
FAX: 222 011 218
hytka <at> 602.cz
http://www.602.cz

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our company would like to apply for registration of two media types into 
the VENDOR tree. These two media types are bound with media files with 
the .fo and .zfo extensions - both files representing e-forms used by 
the 602XML technology.

	---FO---

   Type name: application

   Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form

Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

Jakub Hytka wrote:

> I wanted to ask you whether there is any progress or comment on our 
> registration proposal.

Hi, apparently you are talking about registrations in the vendor's tree.

If there was a comment it should be in one of the list archives, it's also
possible that nobody commented on this list...

>    Published specification: Not available yet.

...without specification application/vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form
is whatever you think it is.  Maybe look in the list archives for other
cases of "xml" and "zip" and uses of "+",  IIRC folks here have certain
preferences how to get this right and what to avoid.  

You are not obliged to adopt these preferences, following established
conventions could be nevertheless a good idea.  After the review (or
if nobody has a helpful comment) if you've made up your mind submit
the templates using the Web form specified in RFC 4288:

<http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl>

This is a ticket system, you'll get an e-mail with the IANA ticket number. 
If nothing else happens for a few weeks you could ask iana <at> iana what
the state of your ticket is.

 Frank

Re: Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

Thanks for the suggestions Frank. I added some information under 
published specification to describe both media types.
We still want to keep the vnd.software602.filler.xml+form and 
vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form subtypes, because they are highly 
descriptive in our opinion. Is this a important issue to be considered?

Here follows the updated registration proposal:

------------------------------------------------------
---FO---

 Type name: application

 Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form

 Required parameters: None

 Optional parameters: None

 Encoding considerations: UTF-8

 Security considerations: FO is a XML-based plain text format, secured 
by signing the file itself through the means of the XML Signature standard.

 Interoperability considerations: There are no special interoperability 
issues.

 Published specification: Software602 distinguishes the FO file as a XML 
data file containing an electronic form intended for usage in the 602XML 
applications. The form is a composure of the layout structure using 

Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jakub Hytka <hytka <at> 602.cz> wrote:
>  Type name: application
>
>  Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form
>
>  Required parameters: None
>
>  Optional parameters: None
>
>  Encoding considerations: UTF-8
>
>  Security considerations: FO is a XML-based plain text format, secured by
> signing the file itself through the means of the XML Signature standard.

So the file is digitally signed, but in what form?  That you say UTF-8
suggests it's some sort of text based form, no?

The "+" convention also isn't necessarily intended to be reused
outside of the context of XML, so "xml+form" won't mean anything to
anybody.  You could save a few characters and just use "form".

>  Type name: application
>
>  Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form
>
>  Required parameters: None
>
>  Optional parameters: None
>
>  Encoding considerations: UTF-8

Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

* Jakub Hytka wrote:
>Thanks for the suggestions Frank. I added some information under 
>published specification to describe both media types.
>We still want to keep the vnd.software602.filler.xml+form and 
>vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form subtypes, because they are highly 
>descriptive in our opinion. Is this a important issue to be considered?
>
>Here follows the updated registration proposal:
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>---FO---
>
> Type name: application
>
> Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form
>
> Required parameters: None
>
> Optional parameters: None
>
> Encoding considerations: UTF-8
>
> Security considerations: FO is a XML-based plain text format, secured 
>by signing the file itself through the means of the XML Signature standard.

See RFC 4288 on the possible values for the Encoding considerations. I
am not sure what kind of format you have. Could application/xml also be
used instead of vnd.software602.filler.xml+form, i.e., are these simply
XML documents with a special type, or is there some special encoding
that makes them non-XML without additional decoding? If they are XML,

Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

At 03:01 08/06/10, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Jakub Hytka wrote:
>>Thanks for the suggestions Frank. I added some information under 
>>published specification to describe both media types.
>>We still want to keep the vnd.software602.filler.xml+form and 
>>vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form subtypes, because they are highly 
>>descriptive in our opinion. Is this a important issue to be considered?
>>
>>Here follows the updated registration proposal:
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>---FO---
>>
>> Type name: application
>>
>> Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form
>>
>> Required parameters: None
>>
>> Optional parameters: None
>>
>> Encoding considerations: UTF-8
>>
>> Security considerations: FO is a XML-based plain text format, secured 
>>by signing the file itself through the means of the XML Signature standard.
>
>See RFC 4288 on the possible values for the Encoding considerations. I
>am not sure what kind of format you have. Could application/xml also be
>used instead of vnd.software602.filler.xml+form, i.e., are these simply
>XML documents with a special type, or is there some special encoding

Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

Mark Baker napsal(a):
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jakub Hytka <hytka <at> 602.cz> wrote:
>   
>>  Type name: application
>>
>>  Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form
>>
>>  Required parameters: None
>>
>>  Optional parameters: None
>>
>>  Encoding considerations: UTF-8
>>
>>  Security considerations: FO is a XML-based plain text format, secured by
>> signing the file itself through the means of the XML Signature standard.
>>     
>
> So the file is digitally signed, but in what form?  That you say UTF-8
> suggests it's some sort of text based form, no?
>
> The "+" convention also isn't necessarily intended to be reused
> outside of the context of XML, so "xml+form" won't mean anything to
> anybody.  You could save a few characters and just use "form".
>
>   
As it is stated there, it's a UTF-8 encoded plain XML file, which is 
digitally protected using the XML signature standard, which means the 
XML structure is embedded in the XML Signature tags containing the 
digital signature description.

Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

Bjoern Hoehrmann napsal(a):
> * Jakub Hytka wrote:
>   
>> Thanks for the suggestions Frank. I added some information under 
>> published specification to describe both media types.
>> We still want to keep the vnd.software602.filler.xml+form and 
>> vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form subtypes, because they are highly 
>> descriptive in our opinion. Is this a important issue to be considered?
>>
>> Here follows the updated registration proposal:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> ---FO---
>>
>> Type name: application
>>
>> Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form
>>
>> Required parameters: None
>>
>> Optional parameters: None
>>
>> Encoding considerations: UTF-8
>>
>> Security considerations: FO is a XML-based plain text format, secured 
>> by signing the file itself through the means of the XML Signature standard.
>>     
>
> See RFC 4288 on the possible values for the Encoding considerations. I
> am not sure what kind of format you have. Could application/xml also be