RFC 5730, "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", August 2009

Errata ID: 1876
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-09-11
Held for Document Update by: Alexey Melnikov
Date Held: 2009-09-11

Throughout the document, when it says:

a)  Section 1, 2nd paragraph:

|  EPP content is identified by MIME media type application/epp+xml.
   Registration information for this media type is included in an
   appendix to this document.

b)  Section 6, last paragraph:

   A MIME media type registration template is included in Appendix B.

c)  Appendix B, first two items

   MIME media type name: application

   MIME subtype name: epp+xml

It should say:

a)

|  EPP content is identified by the media type application/epp+xml.
   Registration information for this media type is included in an
   appendix to this document.

b) 

   A media type registration template is included in Appendix B.

c)

   Media type name: application

   Subtype name: epp+xm

Notes:

Rationale:

As explained in Section 1 od BCP 13, RFC 4288, the concept of a
"Media Type" formalized for the first time in the MIME RFCs has gained
significance far beyond the narrow area of Internet Mail. Therefore,
the related terms should not be used in the colloquial form including
"MIME" that did not even appear in RFC 2045; in particular, the
colloquial term "MIME Type" (or "MIME Media Type") should generally
be avoided in favor of the (original and) more appropriate bare
"Media Type".

I'd expect that a Full Standard RFC follows the established
terminology of the IETF, and that it uses the revised Media Type
registration boilerplate published in RFC 4288 (December 2005),
even when it merely updates/re-parents an existing registration.

EPP has not even a standardized transport binding to Internet Email.
Hence, tying the terminology to MIME seems even more inappropriate
here.

Alexey Melnikov: I can't see anybody be confused by use of MIME type where use of "media type" would be slightly more appropriate.

Report New Errata