Markdown Version | Session Recording

Session Date/Time: 08 Nov 2022 15:00

mediaman

Summary

This meeting of the Media Types and Media Handling (mediaman) working group covered three draft documents: top-level media type definitions, multiple suffix handling, and haptics media type. The group also discussed the general registration procedures for media types and explored potential improvements. Key topics included criteria for registration, the need for an IANA registry of top-level types, security considerations, and streamlining the registration process.

Key Discussion Points

• Top Level Media Type Draft:
  • Discussion on criteria for registration, particularly in the context of top-level media types.
  • Whether to have an IANA registry for top-level types (Consensus seems to lean towards yes).
  • Where to store background justification information (Consensus appears to be in the RFC).
  • Martin's comments about using "should" vs. "must" and BCP 14 compliance.
• Haptics Media Type Draft:
  • Yashwant Mutasami presented updates on the haptics draft, aligning it with MPEG developments.
  • Addressing security considerations and ensuring they cover all haptics types, not just the initial registrations.
  • The need to clarify the encoding considerations, specifically regarding text vs. binary formats.
  • Acknowledged dependencies on the top-level media type draft.
• Multiple Suffixes Draft:
  • Discussion on security considerations related to potential abuse of multiple suffix processing.
  • Guidance on fragment processing when using multiple suffixes.
  • What to do when iteratively removing suffixes results in an unregistered media type.
  • How fragment processing applies to reversible transformations, and whether the rules should be specified in the relevant suffix RFC.
• Registration Procedures:
  • Exploration of GitHub-based registration to improve transparency and iteration.
  • Discussion on broadening access to the standards tree, potentially including open-source projects or well-defined namespaces.
  • The existing "Standards tree" requires standards organizations to certify. The working group is considering lowering the barriers.
  • The trade-offs of making registration too easy, specifically in terms of squatting and expert workload.
  • Experts need more discretion in determining which projects make it to the standard's tree, balanced with requirements and guidelines.

Decisions and Action Items

• Top Level Media Type Draft:

  • Revise the draft to address the issues raised, especially BCP 14 compliance.
  • Incorporate the consensus to require an IANA registry for top level media types.

• Haptics Media Type Draft:

  • Yashwant to create a repository under the working group organization on GitHub.
  • Address the issues identified regarding security considerations and encoding.
  • Ensure that the draft is compliant with RFC 8173 and BCP 14.

• Multiple Suffixes Draft:

  • Incorporate the guidance on fragment processing, specifying that how to apply them must be specified in the RFC associated with each suffix.
  • Address the comments and recommendations from Mark Nottingham and Ted Thibodeaux Jr.
  • Solicit broader review from the DID and Verifiable Credentials working groups.

• Registration Procedures:

  • Mark Nottingham to draft a document or proposal regarding improvements to the registration process.

Next Steps

• The working group will continue to work on the drafts and address the identified issues.
• The editors will update the drafts based on the meeting discussions and file the issues.
• The working group will continue the discussion on registration procedures on the mailing list.
• Aim for last calls on some drafts before the next IETF meeting.