<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.39 (Ruby 3.2.2) -->
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-00" category="std" consensus="true" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.18.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Community Registrations">Allowing Community Registrations in the Standards Tree</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-mediaman-standards-tree-00"/>
    <author initials="M." surname="Nottingham" fullname="Mark Nottingham">
      <organization/>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <postalLine>Prahran</postalLine>
          <postalLine>Australia</postalLine>
        </postal>
        <email>mnot@mnot.net</email>
        <uri>https://www.mnot.net/</uri>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 28?>

<t>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 <xref target="RFC6838"/> to allow their registration.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 32?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC6838"/> only allows registrations in the standards tree from the IETF and other "recognized standards-related organizations."</t>
      <t>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.</t>
      <t>To address this shortcoming, <xref target="tree"/> suggests a drop-in replacement for <xref section="3.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC6838"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="notational-conventions">
        <name>Notational Conventions</name>
        <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
        <?line -18?>

</section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="tree">
      <name>Standards Tree</name>
      <t>The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet community. Registrations in the standards tree <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be either:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>in the case of registrations associated with IETF specifications, approved directly by the IESG, or</li>
        <li>registered by a recognized standards-related organization using the "Specification Required" IANA registration policy <xref target="RFC5226"/> (which implies Expert Review), or</li>
        <li>approved by the Designated Expert(s) as identifying a "community format", as described in <xref target="community"/>.</li>
      </ol>
      <t>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 <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> 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.</t>
      <t>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 <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be described by a formal standards specification produced by the submitting standards- related organization.</t>
      <t>The third case is described in <xref target="community"/>.</t>
      <t>Media types in the standards tree <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> have faceted names, unless they are grandfathered in using the process described in Appendix A.</t>
      <t>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.</t>
      <t>Standards-tree registrations from recognized standards-related organizations are submitted directly to the IANA, where they will undergo Expert Review <xref target="RFC5226"/> prior to approval. In this case, the Expert Reviewer(s) will, among other things, ensure that the required specification provides adequate documentation.</t>
      <section anchor="community">
        <name>Community Formats in the Standards Tree</name>
        <t>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:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>There is a well-defined specification for the format</li>
          <li>That specification is not tied to or heavily associated with one implementation</li>
          <li>The specification is freely available at a stable location</li>
          <li>There are multiple interoperable implementations of the specification, or they are likely to emerge</li>
          <li>The requested name is appropriate to the use case, and not so generic that it may be considered 'squatting'</li>
          <li>There is no conflict with IETF work or work at other recognised SDOs (present or future)</li>
          <li>There is evidence of broad adoption</li>
        </ul>
        <t>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.</t>
        <t>Note that such registrations still go through preliminary community review (Section 5.1), and decisions can be appealed (Section 5.3).</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This draft introduces no new instructions for IANA.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This draft does not introduce new security issues. Seriously.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC6838">
        <front>
          <title>Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures</title>
          <author fullname="N. Freed" initials="N." surname="Freed"/>
          <author fullname="J. Klensin" initials="J." surname="Klensin"/>
          <author fullname="T. Hansen" initials="T." surname="Hansen"/>
          <date month="January" year="2013"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines procedures for the specification and registration of media types for use in HTTP, MIME, and other Internet protocols. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="13"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6838"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6838"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC2119">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
          <date month="March" year="1997"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8174">
        <front>
          <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
          <date month="May" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5226">
        <front>
          <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
          <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
          <author fullname="H. Alvestrand" initials="H." surname="Alvestrand"/>
          <date month="May" year="2008"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations across all implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
            <t>In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.</t>
            <t>This document obsoletes RFC 2434. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5226"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5226"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <?line 113?>



  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
