Re: IANA MIME Type change process

[=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>]

 > Note that it also appears that the "owner" for this MIME type is the
 > SSTC as opposed to a specific individual.  So as long as the change
 > request is submitted by someone in the SSTC, we should be okay (i.e. we
 > don't have to recruit Jeff H to submit the change).

Yep, that's specifically why I listed the SSTC as the "owner" in the original 
registration rather than some individual.


 >>    Changes should be requested only when there are serious omissions or
 >>    errors in the published specification.  When review is required, a
 >>    change request may be denied if it renders entities that were valid
 >>    under the previous definition invalid under the new definition.
 >
 > That is the case here.

Yes, it appears so if the discussion here is regards "PE80: Error in 
permissible root elements for MIME type (Open)" in sstc-saml-errata-2.0-draft-51.


 >  It may be simpler to leave it

by this you mean to leave undisturbed the "Appendix A.Registration of MIME 
media type application/samlmetadata+xml" in saml-metadata-2.0-os, as well as 
the IANA registration (of which the former is a copy), yes?


 > ... and add an errata in
 > the metadata exchange section...

i.e. in Chapter 4 "Metadata Publication and Resolution" in saml-metadata-2.0-os

 >  that notes the mistake and suggests that
 > people SHOULD NOT pass around AffiliationDescriptor-rooted documents.

yeah, that might be "easier" than registering a new MIME media type (of 
"application/samlmetadata+xmlv2", say). If there are not many 
AffiliationDescriptor-rooted metadata documents in the wild, then it may work 
out fine.

=JeffH