egekorkan
commented
6 months ago Call of 22.02:
- We need to clarify what to do for protocol binding management. We need to clarify which registries from which requirements should be used.
- We need to clarify if we want to host the binding registry at IANA. If we decide to do so, we should check whether an IETF RFC is a requirement to have an IANA registry or if it is just a pattern.
- As of the call today, @JKRhb @egekorkan do not see the reason for a new IANA registry. To be clarified further.
- @lu-zero The point is: If we get into discussions with IANA via new payload and protocol bindings due to new media types and URI scheme registration, what do we say if they propose to host the binding registry there?
- If we are going to be strict with URI schemes, media types and subprotocols being registered to IANA first, we will use their registries (URI scheme, WS subprotocols, media types). Thus we need to have a better connection to the organization.
- As explained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7595.html#section-7.2, URI Schemes can be registered as long as there is a stable spec.
An interesting breakout session would be co-hosted with WebCodecs moderators where we discuss the registry mechanism in W3C (WebCodecs registry and potential bindings registry).
With #1161, the first step of the discussion is done, i.e. analysis of existing approaches. As next two steps, we need to clarify our requirements (what to manage and how), and which existing mechanisms and policies can be used. Some of these are:
We should check https://www.w3.org/2020/01/registering-mediatypes on what happens with IETF and IANA registration. Also with PLH.