RFC2048 日本語訳

Network Working Group                                           N. Freed
Request for Comments: 2048                                      Innosoft
BCP: 13                                                       J. Klensin
Obsoletes: 1521, 1522, 1590                                          MCI
Category: Best Current Practice                                J. Postel
                                                                     ISI
                                                           November 1996

Network Working Group N. Freed Request for Comments: 2048 Innosoft BCP: 13 J. Klensin Obsoletes: 1521, 1522, 1590 MCI Category: Best Current Practice J. Postel ISI November 1996

                 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
                           (MIME) Part Four:
                        Registration Procedures

Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures

Status of this Memo

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

Abstract

   STD 11, RFC 822, defines a message representation protocol specifying
   considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, and leaves the
   message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text.  This set of
   documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet Mail
   Extensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for

STD 11, RFC 822, defines a message representation protocol specifying considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, and leaves the message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text. This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for

    (1)   textual message bodies in character sets other than
          US-ASCII,

(1) textual message bodies in character sets other than US-ASCII,

    (2)   an extensible set of different formats for non-textual
          message bodies,

(2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies,

    (3)   multi-part message bodies, and

(3) multi-part message bodies, and

    (4)   textual header information in character sets other than
          US-ASCII.

(4) textual header information in character sets other than US-ASCII.

   These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD
   11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them.  Because RFC 822 said
   so little about message bodies, these documents are largely
   orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822.

These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD 11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them. Because RFC 822 said so little about message bodies, these documents are largely orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822.

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   This fourth document, RFC 2048, specifies various IANA registration
   procedures for the following MIME facilities:

This fourth document, RFC 2048, specifies various IANA registration procedures for the following MIME facilities:

    (1)   media types,

(1) media types,

    (2)   external body access types,

(2) external body access types,

    (3)   content-transfer-encodings.

(3) content-transfer-encodings.

   Registration of character sets for use in MIME is covered elsewhere
   and is no longer addressed by this document.

Registration of character sets for use in MIME is covered elsewhere and is no longer addressed by this document.

   These documents are revisions of RFCs 1521 and 1522, which themselves
   were revisions of RFCs 1341 and 1342.  An appendix in RFC 2049
   describes differences and changes from previous versions.

These documents are revisions of RFCs 1521 and 1522, which themselves were revisions of RFCs 1341 and 1342. An appendix in RFC 2049 describes differences and changes from previous versions.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction .........................................    3
   2. Media Type Registration ..............................    4
   2.1 Registration Trees and Subtype Names ................    4
   2.1.1 IETF Tree .........................................    4
   2.1.2 Vendor Tree .......................................    4
   2.1.3 Personal or Vanity Tree ...........................    5
   2.1.4 Special `x.' Tree .................................    5
   2.1.5 Additional Registration Trees .....................    6
   2.2 Registration Requirements ...........................    6
   2.2.1 Functionality Requirement .........................    6
   2.2.2 Naming Requirements ...............................    6
   2.2.3 Parameter Requirements ............................    7
   2.2.4 Canonicalization and Format Requirements ..........    7
   2.2.5 Interchange Recommendations .......................    8
   2.2.6 Security Requirements .............................    8
   2.2.7 Usage and Implementation Non-requirements .........    9
   2.2.8 Publication Requirements ..........................   10
   2.2.9 Additional Information ............................   10
   2.3 Registration Procedure ..............................   11
   2.3.1 Present the Media Type to the Community for  Review   11
   2.3.2 IESG Approval .....................................   12
   2.3.3 IANA Registration .................................   12
   2.4 Comments on Media Type Registrations ................   12
   2.5 Location of Registered Media Type List ..............   12
   2.6 IANA Procedures for Registering Media Types .........   12
   2.7 Change Control ......................................   13
   2.8 Registration Template ...............................   14
   3. External Body Access Types ...........................   14
   3.1 Registration Requirements ...........................   15
   3.1.1 Naming Requirements ...............................   15

1. Introduction ......................................... 3 2. Media Type Registration .............................. 4 2.1 Registration Trees and Subtype Names ................ 4 2.1.1 IETF Tree ......................................... 4 2.1.2 Vendor Tree ....................................... 4 2.1.3 Personal or Vanity Tree ........................... 5 2.1.4 Special `x.' Tree ................................. 5 2.1.5 Additional Registration Trees ..................... 6 2.2 Registration Requirements ........................... 6 2.2.1 Functionality Requirement ......................... 6 2.2.2 Naming Requirements ............................... 6 2.2.3 Parameter Requirements ............................ 7 2.2.4 Canonicalization and Format Requirements .......... 7 2.2.5 Interchange Recommendations ....................... 8 2.2.6 Security Requirements ............................. 8 2.2.7 Usage and Implementation Non-requirements ......... 9 2.2.8 Publication Requirements .......................... 10 2.2.9 Additional Information ............................ 10 2.3 Registration Procedure .............................. 11 2.3.1 Present the Media Type to the Community for Review 11 2.3.2 IESG Approval ..................................... 12 2.3.3 IANA Registration ................................. 12 2.4 Comments on Media Type Registrations ................ 12 2.5 Location of Registered Media Type List .............. 12 2.6 IANA Procedures for Registering Media Types ......... 12 2.7 Change Control ...................................... 13 2.8 Registration Template ............................... 14 3. External Body Access Types ........................... 14 3.1 Registration Requirements ........................... 15 3.1.1 Naming Requirements ............................... 15

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   3.1.2 Mechanism Specification Requirements ..............   15
   3.1.3 Publication Requirements ..........................   15
   3.1.4 Security Requirements .............................   15
   3.2 Registration Procedure ..............................   15
   3.2.1 Present the Access Type to the Community ..........   16
   3.2.2 Access Type Reviewer ..............................   16
   3.2.3 IANA Registration .................................   16
   3.3 Location of Registered Access Type List .............   16
   3.4 IANA Procedures for Registering Access Types ........   16
   4. Transfer Encodings ...................................   17
   4.1 Transfer Encoding Requirements ......................   17
   4.1.1 Naming Requirements ...............................   17
   4.1.2 Algorithm Specification Requirements ..............   18
   4.1.3 Input Domain Requirements .........................   18
   4.1.4 Output Range Requirements .........................   18
   4.1.5 Data Integrity and Generality Requirements ........   18
   4.1.6 New Functionality Requirements ....................   18
   4.2 Transfer Encoding Definition Procedure ..............   19
   4.3 IANA Procedures for Transfer Encoding Registration...   19
   4.4 Location of Registered Transfer Encodings List ......   19
   5. Authors' Addresses ...................................   20
   A. Grandfathered Media Types ............................   21

3.1.2 Mechanism Specification Requirements .............. 15 3.1.3 Publication Requirements .......................... 15 3.1.4 Security Requirements ............................. 15 3.2 Registration Procedure .............................. 15 3.2.1 Present the Access Type to the Community .......... 16 3.2.2 Access Type Reviewer .............................. 16 3.2.3 IANA Registration ................................. 16 3.3 Location of Registered Access Type List ............. 16 3.4 IANA Procedures for Registering Access Types ........ 16 4. Transfer Encodings ................................... 17 4.1 Transfer Encoding Requirements ...................... 17 4.1.1 Naming Requirements ............................... 17 4.1.2 Algorithm Specification Requirements .............. 18 4.1.3 Input Domain Requirements ......................... 18 4.1.4 Output Range Requirements ......................... 18 4.1.5 Data Integrity and Generality Requirements ........ 18 4.1.6 New Functionality Requirements .................... 18 4.2 Transfer Encoding Definition Procedure .............. 19 4.3 IANA Procedures for Transfer Encoding Registration... 19 4.4 Location of Registered Transfer Encodings List ...... 19 5. Authors' Addresses ................................... 20 A. Grandfathered Media Types ............................ 21

1.  Introduction

1. Introduction

   Recent Internet protocols have been carefully designed to be easily
   extensible in certain areas.  In particular, MIME [RFC 2045] is an
   open-ended framework and can accommodate additional object types,
   character sets, and access methods without any changes to the basic
   protocol.  A registration process is needed, however, to ensure that
   the set of such values is developed in an orderly, well-specified,
   and public manner.

Recent Internet protocols have been carefully designed to be easily extensible in certain areas. In particular, MIME [RFC 2045] is an open-ended framework and can accommodate additional object types, character sets, and access methods without any changes to the basic protocol. A registration process is needed, however, to ensure that the set of such values is developed in an orderly, well-specified, and public manner.

   This document defines registration procedures which use the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a central registry for such
   values.

This document defines registration procedures which use the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a central registry for such values.

   Historical Note: The registration process for media types was
   initially defined in the context of the asynchronous Internet mail
   environment.  In this mail environment there is a need to limit the
   number of possible media types to increase the likelihood of
   interoperability when the capabilities of the remote mail system are
   not known.  As media types are used in new environments, where the
   proliferation of media types is not a hindrance to interoperability,
   the original procedure was excessively restrictive and had to be
   generalized.

Historical Note: The registration process for media types was initially defined in the context of the asynchronous Internet mail environment. In this mail environment there is a need to limit the number of possible media types to increase the likelihood of interoperability when the capabilities of the remote mail system are not known. As media types are used in new environments, where the proliferation of media types is not a hindrance to interoperability, the original procedure was excessively restrictive and had to be generalized.

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

2.  Media Type Registration

2. Media Type Registration

   Registration of a new media type or types starts with the
   construction of a registration proposal.  Registration may occur in
   several different registration trees, which have different
   requirements as discussed below.  In general, the new registration
   proposal is circulated and reviewed in a fashion appropriate to the
   tree involved.  The media type is then registered if the proposal is
   acceptable.  The following sections describe the requirements and
   procedures used for each of the different registration trees.

Registration of a new media type or types starts with the construction of a registration proposal. Registration may occur in several different registration trees, which have different requirements as discussed below. In general, the new registration proposal is circulated and reviewed in a fashion appropriate to the tree involved. The media type is then registered if the proposal is acceptable. The following sections describe the requirements and procedures used for each of the different registration trees.

2.1.  Registration Trees and Subtype Names

2.1. Registration Trees and Subtype Names

   In order to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the
   registration process, different structures of subtype names may be
   registered to accomodate the different natural requirements for,
   e.g., a subtype that will be recommended for wide support and
   implementation by the Internet Community or a subtype that is used to
   move files associated with proprietary software.  The following
   subsections define registration "trees", distinguished by the use of
   faceted names (e.g., names of the form "tree.subtree...type").  Note
   that some media types defined prior to this document do not conform
   to the naming conventions described below.  See Appendix A for a
   discussion of them.

In order to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the registration process, different structures of subtype names may be registered to accomodate the different natural requirements for, e.g., a subtype that will be recommended for wide support and implementation by the Internet Community or a subtype that is used to move files associated with proprietary software. The following subsections define registration "trees", distinguished by the use of faceted names (e.g., names of the form "tree.subtree...type"). Note that some media types defined prior to this document do not conform to the naming conventions described below. See Appendix A for a discussion of them.

2.1.1.  IETF Tree

2.1.1. IETF Tree

   The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the
   Internet Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval
   by the IESG and publication of the media type registration as some
   form of RFC.

The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and publication of the media type registration as some form of RFC.

   Media types in the IETF tree are normally denoted by names that are
   not explicitly faceted, i.e., do not contain period (".", full stop)
   characters.

Media types in the IETF tree are normally denoted by names that are not explicitly faceted, i.e., do not contain period (".", full stop) characters.

   The "owner" of a media type registration in the IETF tree is assumed
   to be the IETF itself.  Modification or alteration of the
   specification requires the same level of processing (e.g.  standards
   track) required for the initial registration.

The "owner" of a media type registration in the IETF tree is assumed to be the IETF itself. Modification or alteration of the specification requires the same level of processing (e.g. standards track) required for the initial registration.

2.1.2.  Vendor Tree

2.1.2. Vendor Tree

   The vendor tree is used for media types associated with commercially
   available products.  "Vendor" or "producer" are construed as
   equivalent and very broadly in this context.

The vendor tree is used for media types associated with commercially available products. "Vendor" or "producer" are construed as equivalent and very broadly in this context.

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   A registration may be placed in the vendor tree by anyone who has
   need to interchange files associated with the particular product.
   However, the registration formally belongs to the vendor or
   organization producing the software or file format.  Changes to the
   specification will be made at their request, as discussed in
   subsequent sections.

A registration may be placed in the vendor tree by anyone who has need to interchange files associated with the particular product. However, the registration formally belongs to the vendor or organization producing the software or file format. Changes to the specification will be made at their request, as discussed in subsequent sections.

   Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading
   facet "vnd.".  That may be followed, at the discretion of the
   registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer
   (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the
   producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product
   designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures).

Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures).

   While public exposure and review of media types to be registered in
   the vendor tree is not required, using the ietf-types list for review
   is strongly encouraged to improve the quality of those
   specifications. Registrations in the vendor tree may be submitted
   directly to the IANA.

While public exposure and review of media types to be registered in the vendor tree is not required, using the ietf-types list for review is strongly encouraged to improve the quality of those specifications. Registrations in the vendor tree may be submitted directly to the IANA.

2.1.3.  Personal or Vanity Tree

2.1.3. Personal or Vanity Tree

   Registrations for media types created experimentally or as part of
   products that are not distributed commercially may be registered in
   the personal or vanity tree.  The registrations are distinguished by
   the leading facet "prs.".

Registrations for media types created experimentally or as part of products that are not distributed commercially may be registered in the personal or vanity tree. The registrations are distinguished by the leading facet "prs.".

   The owner of "personal" registrations and associated specifications
   is the person or entity making the registration, or one to whom
   responsibility has been transferred as described below.

The owner of "personal" registrations and associated specifications is the person or entity making the registration, or one to whom responsibility has been transferred as described below.

   While public exposure and review of media types to be registered in
   the personal tree is not required, using the ietf-types list for
   review is strongly encouraged to improve the quality of those
   specifications.  Registrations in the personl tree may be submitted
   directly to the IANA.

While public exposure and review of media types to be registered in the personal tree is not required, using the ietf-types list for review is strongly encouraged to improve the quality of those specifications. Registrations in the personl tree may be submitted directly to the IANA.

2.1.4.  Special `x.' Tree

2.1.4. Special `x.' Tree

   For convenience and symmetry with this registration scheme, media
   type names with "x." as the first facet may be used for the same
   purposes for which names starting in "x-" are normally used.  These
   types are unregistered, experimental, and should be used only with
   the active agreement of the parties exchanging them.

For convenience and symmetry with this registration scheme, media type names with "x." as the first facet may be used for the same purposes for which names starting in "x-" are normally used. These types are unregistered, experimental, and should be used only with the active agreement of the parties exchanging them.

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   However, with the simplified registration procedures described above
   for vendor and personal trees, it should rarely, if ever, be
   necessary to use unregistered experimental types, and as such use of
   both "x-" and "x." forms is discouraged.

However, with the simplified registration procedures described above for vendor and personal trees, it should rarely, if ever, be necessary to use unregistered experimental types, and as such use of both "x-" and "x." forms is discouraged.

2.1.5.  Additional Registration Trees

2.1.5. Additional Registration Trees

   From time to time and as required by the community, the IANA may,
   with the advice and consent of the IESG, create new top-level
   registration trees.  It is explicitly assumed that these trees may be
   created for external registration and management by well-known
   permanent bodies, such as scientific societies for media types
   specific to the sciences they cover.  In general, the quality of
   review of specifications for one of these additional registration
   trees is expected to be equivalent to that which IETF would give to
   registrations in its own tree. Establishment of these new trees will
   be announced through RFC publication approved by the IESG.

From time to time and as required by the community, the IANA may, with the advice and consent of the IESG, create new top-level registration trees. It is explicitly assumed that these trees may be created for external registration and management by well-known permanent bodies, such as scientific societies for media types specific to the sciences they cover. In general, the quality of review of specifications for one of these additional registration trees is expected to be equivalent to that which IETF would give to registrations in its own tree. Establishment of these new trees will be announced through RFC publication approved by the IESG.

2.2.  Registration Requirements

2.2. Registration Requirements

   Media type registration proposals are all expected to conform to
   various requirements laid out in the following sections.  Note that
   requirement specifics sometimes vary depending on the registration
   tree, again as detailed in the following sections.

Media type registration proposals are all expected to conform to various requirements laid out in the following sections. Note that requirement specifics sometimes vary depending on the registration tree, again as detailed in the following sections.

2.2.1.  Functionality Requirement

2.2.1. Functionality Requirement

   Media types must function as an actual media format: Registration of
   things that are better thought of as a transfer encoding, as a
   character set, or as a collection of separate entities of another
   type, is not allowed.  For example, although applications exist to
   decode the base64 transfer encoding [RFC 2045], base64 cannot be
   registered as a media type.

Media types must function as an actual media format: Registration of things that are better thought of as a transfer encoding, as a character set, or as a collection of separate entities of another type, is not allowed. For example, although applications exist to decode the base64 transfer encoding [RFC 2045], base64 cannot be registered as a media type.

   This requirement applies regardless of the registration tree
   involved.

This requirement applies regardless of the registration tree involved.

2.2.2.  Naming Requirements

2.2.2. Naming Requirements

   All registered media types must be assigned MIME type and subtype
   names. The combination of these names then serves to uniquely
   identify the media type and the format of the subtype name identifies
   the registration tree.

All registered media types must be assigned MIME type and subtype names. The combination of these names then serves to uniquely identify the media type and the format of the subtype name identifies the registration tree.

   The choice of top-level type name must take the nature of media type
   involved into account. For example, media normally used for
   representing still images should be a subtype of the image content
   type, whereas media capable of representing audio information belongs

The choice of top-level type name must take the nature of media type involved into account. For example, media normally used for representing still images should be a subtype of the image content type, whereas media capable of representing audio information belongs

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 6]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   under the audio content type. See RFC 2046 for additional information
   on the basic set of top-level types and their characteristics.

under the audio content type. See RFC 2046 for additional information on the basic set of top-level types and their characteristics.

   New subtypes of top-level types must conform to the restrictions of
   the top-level type, if any. For example, all subtypes of the
   multipart content type must use the same encapsulation syntax.

New subtypes of top-level types must conform to the restrictions of the top-level type, if any. For example, all subtypes of the multipart content type must use the same encapsulation syntax.

   In some cases a new media type may not "fit" under any currently
   defined top-level content type. Such cases are expected to be quite
   rare. However, if such a case arises a new top-level type can be
   defined to accommodate it. Such a definition must be done via
   standards-track RFC; no other mechanism can be used to define
   additional top-level content types.

In some cases a new media type may not "fit" under any currently defined top-level content type. Such cases are expected to be quite rare. However, if such a case arises a new top-level type can be defined to accommodate it. Such a definition must be done via standards-track RFC; no other mechanism can be used to define additional top-level content types.

   These requirements apply regardless of the registration tree
   involved.

These requirements apply regardless of the registration tree involved.

2.2.3.  Parameter Requirements

2.2.3. Parameter Requirements

   Media types may elect to use one or more MIME content type
   parameters, or some parameters may be automatically made available to
   the media type by virtue of being a subtype of a content type that
   defines a set of parameters applicable to any of its subtypes.  In
   either case, the names, values, and meanings of any parameters must
   be fully specified when a media type is registered in the IETF tree,
   and should be specified as completely as possible when media types
   are registered in the vendor or personal trees.

Media types may elect to use one or more MIME content type parameters, or some parameters may be automatically made available to the media type by virtue of being a subtype of a content type that defines a set of parameters applicable to any of its subtypes. In either case, the names, values, and meanings of any parameters must be fully specified when a media type is registered in the IETF tree, and should be specified as completely as possible when media types are registered in the vendor or personal trees.

   New parameters must not be defined as a way to introduce new
   functionality in types registered in the IETF tree, although new
   parameters may be added to convey additional information that does
   not otherwise change existing functionality.  An example of this
   would be a "revision" parameter to indicate a revision level of an
   external specification such as JPEG.  Similar behavior is encouraged
   for media types registered in the vendor or personal trees but is not
   required.

New parameters must not be defined as a way to introduce new functionality in types registered in the IETF tree, although new parameters may be added to convey additional information that does not otherwise change existing functionality. An example of this would be a "revision" parameter to indicate a revision level of an external specification such as JPEG. Similar behavior is encouraged for media types registered in the vendor or personal trees but is not required.

2.2.4.  Canonicalization and Format Requirements

2.2.4. Canonicalization and Format Requirements

   All registered media types must employ a single, canonical data
   format, regardless of registration tree.

All registered media types must employ a single, canonical data format, regardless of registration tree.

   A precise and openly available specification of the format of each
   media type is required for all types registered in the IETF tree and
   must at a minimum be referenced by, if it isn't actually included in,
   the media type registration proposal itself.

A precise and openly available specification of the format of each media type is required for all types registered in the IETF tree and must at a minimum be referenced by, if it isn't actually included in, the media type registration proposal itself.

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 7]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   The specifications of format and processing particulars may or may
   not be publically available for media types registered in the vendor
   tree, and such registration proposals are explicitly permitted to
   include only a specification of which software and version produce or
   process such media types.  References to or inclusion of format
   specifications in registration proposals is encouraged but not
   required.

The specifications of format and processing particulars may or may not be publically available for media types registered in the vendor tree, and such registration proposals are explicitly permitted to include only a specification of which software and version produce or process such media types. References to or inclusion of format specifications in registration proposals is encouraged but not required.

   Format specifications are still required for registration in the
   personal tree, but may be either published as RFCs or otherwise
   deposited with IANA. The deposited specifications will meet the same
   criteria as those required to register a well-known TCP port and, in
   particular, need not be made public.

Format specifications are still required for registration in the personal tree, but may be either published as RFCs or otherwise deposited with IANA. The deposited specifications will meet the same criteria as those required to register a well-known TCP port and, in particular, need not be made public.

   Some media types involve the use of patented technology.  The
   registration of media types involving patented technology is
   specifically permitted.  However, the restrictions set forth in RFC
   1602 on the use of patented technology in standards-track protocols
   must be respected when the specification of a media type is part of a
   standards-track protocol.

Some media types involve the use of patented technology. The registration of media types involving patented technology is specifically permitted. However, the restrictions set forth in RFC 1602 on the use of patented technology in standards-track protocols must be respected when the specification of a media type is part of a standards-track protocol.

2.2.5.  Interchange Recommendations

2.2.5. Interchange Recommendations

   Media types should, whenever possible, interoperate across as many
   systems and applications as possible. However, some media types will
   inevitably have problems interoperating across different platforms.
   Problems with different versions, byte ordering, and specifics of
   gateway handling can and will arise.

Media types should, whenever possible, interoperate across as many systems and applications as possible. However, some media types will inevitably have problems interoperating across different platforms. Problems with different versions, byte ordering, and specifics of gateway handling can and will arise.

   Universal interoperability of media types is not required, but known
   interoperability issues should be identified whenever possible.
   Publication of a media type does not require an exhaustive review of
   interoperability, and the interoperability considerations section is
   subject to continuing evaluation.

Universal interoperability of media types is not required, but known interoperability issues should be identified whenever possible. Publication of a media type does not require an exhaustive review of interoperability, and the interoperability considerations section is subject to continuing evaluation.

   These recommendations apply regardless of the registration tree
   involved.

These recommendations apply regardless of the registration tree involved.

2.2.6.  Security Requirements

2.2.6. Security Requirements

   An analysis of security issues is required for for all types
   registered in the IETF Tree.  (This is in accordance with the basic
   requirements for all IETF protocols.) A similar analysis for media
   types registered in the vendor or personal trees is encouraged but
   not required.  However, regardless of what security analysis has or
   has not been done, all descriptions of security issues must be as
   accurate as possible regardless of registration tree.  In particular,
   a statement that there are "no security issues associated with this

An analysis of security issues is required for for all types registered in the IETF Tree. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for all IETF protocols.) A similar analysis for media types registered in the vendor or personal trees is encouraged but not required. However, regardless of what security analysis has or has not been done, all descriptions of security issues must be as accurate as possible regardless of registration tree. In particular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated with this

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 8]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   type" must not be confused with "the security issues associates with
   this type have not been assessed".

type" must not be confused with "the security issues associates with this type have not been assessed".

   There is absolutely no requirement that media types registered in any
   tree be secure or completely free from risks.  Nevertheless, all
   known security risks must be identified in the registration of a
   media type, again regardless of registration tree.

There is absolutely no requirement that media types registered in any tree be secure or completely free from risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks must be identified in the registration of a media type, again regardless of registration tree.

   The security considerations section of all registrations is subject
   to continuing evaluation and modification, and in particular may be
   extended by use of the "comments on media types" mechanism described
   in subsequent sections.

The security considerations section of all registrations is subject to continuing evaluation and modification, and in particular may be extended by use of the "comments on media types" mechanism described in subsequent sections.

   Some of the issues that should be looked at in a security analysis of
   a media type are:

Some of the issues that should be looked at in a security analysis of a media type are:

    (1)   Complex media types may include provisions for
          directives that institute actions on a recipient's
          files or other resources.  In many cases provision is
          made for originators to specify arbitrary actions in an
          unrestricted fashion which may then have devastating
          effects.  See the registration of the
          application/postscript media type in RFC 2046 for
          an example of such directives and how to handle them.

(1) Complex media types may include provisions for directives that institute actions on a recipient's files or other resources. In many cases provision is made for originators to specify arbitrary actions in an unrestricted fashion which may then have devastating effects. See the registration of the application/postscript media type in RFC 2046 for an example of such directives and how to handle them.

    (2)   Complex media types may include provisions for
          directives that institute actions which, while not
          directly harmful to the recipient, may result in
          disclosure of information that either facilitates a
          subsequent attack or else violates a recipient's
          privacy in some way.  Again, the registration of the
          application/postscript media type illustrates how such
          directives can be handled.

(2) Complex media types may include provisions for directives that institute actions which, while not directly harmful to the recipient, may result in disclosure of information that either facilitates a subsequent attack or else violates a recipient's privacy in some way. Again, the registration of the application/postscript media type illustrates how such directives can be handled.

    (3)   A media type might be targeted for applications that
          require some sort of security assurance but not provide
          the necessary security mechanisms themselves. For
          example, a media type could be defined for storage of
          confidential medical information which in turn requires
          an external confidentiality service.

(3) A media type might be targeted for applications that require some sort of security assurance but not provide the necessary security mechanisms themselves. For example, a media type could be defined for storage of confidential medical information which in turn requires an external confidentiality service.

2.2.7.  Usage and Implementation Non-requirements

2.2.7. Usage and Implementation Non-requirements

   In the asynchronous mail environment, where information on the
   capabilities of the remote mail agent is frequently not available to
   the sender, maximum interoperability is attained by restricting the
   number of media types used to those "common" formats expected to be
   widely implemented.  This was asserted in the past as a reason to

In the asynchronous mail environment, where information on the capabilities of the remote mail agent is frequently not available to the sender, maximum interoperability is attained by restricting the number of media types used to those "common" formats expected to be widely implemented. This was asserted in the past as a reason to

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 9]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

   limit the number of possible media types and resulted in a
   registration process with a significant hurdle and delay for those
   registering media types.

limit the number of possible media types and resulted in a registration process with a significant hurdle and delay for those registering media types.

   However, the need for "common" media types does not require limiting
   the registration of new media types. If a limited set of media types
   is recommended for a particular application, that should be asserted
   by a separate applicability statement specific for the application
   and/or environment.

However, the need for "common" media types does not require limiting the registration of new media types. If a limited set of media types is recommended for a particular application, that should be asserted by a separate applicability statement specific for the application and/or environment.

   As such, universal support and implementation of a media type is NOT
   a requirement for registration.  If, however, a media type is
   explicitly intended for limited use, this should be noted in its
   registration.

As such, universal support and implementation of a media type is NOT a requirement for registration. If, however, a media type is explicitly intended for limited use, this should be noted in its registration.

2.2.8.  Publication Requirements

2.2.8. Publication Requirements

   Proposals for media types registered in the IETF tree must be
   published as RFCs. RFC publication of vendor and personal media type
   proposals is encouraged but not required. In all cases IANA will
   retain copies of all media type proposals and "publish" them as part
   of the media types registration tree itself.

Proposals for media types registered in the IETF tree must be published as RFCs. RFC publication of vendor and personal media type proposals is encouraged but not required. In all cases IANA will retain copies of all media type proposals and "publish" them as part of the media types registration tree itself.

   Other than in the IETF tree, the registration of a data type does not
   imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation by IANA or IETF or
   even certification that the specification is adequate.  To become
   Internet Standards, protocol, data objects, or whatever must go
   through the IETF standards process.  This is too difficult and too
   lengthy a process for the convenient registration of media types.

Other than in the IETF tree, the registration of a data type does not imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation by IANA or IETF or even certification that the specification is adequate. To become Internet Standards, protocol, data objects, or whatever must go through the IETF standards process. This is too difficult and too lengthy a process for the convenient registration of media types.

   The IETF tree exists for media types that do require require a
   substantive review and approval process with the vendor and personal
   trees exist for those that do not. It is expected that applicability
   statements for particular applications will be published from time to
   time that recommend implementation of, and support for, media types
   that have proven particularly useful in those contexts.

The IETF tree exists for media types that do require require a substantive review and approval process with the vendor and personal trees exist for those that do not. It is expected that applicability statements for particular applications will be published from time to time that recommend implementation of, and support for, media types that have proven particularly useful in those contexts.

   As discussed above, registration of a top-level type requires
   standards-track processing and, hence, RFC publication.

As discussed above, registration of a top-level type requires standards-track processing and, hence, RFC publication.

2.2.9.  Additional Information

2.2.9. Additional Information

   Various sorts of optional information may be included in the
   specification of a media type if it is available:

Various sorts of optional information may be included in the specification of a media type if it is available:

    (1)   Magic number(s) (length, octet values). Magic numbers
          are byte sequences that are always present and thus can
          be used to identify entities as being of a given media

(1) Magic number(s) (length, octet values). Magic numbers are byte sequences that are always present and thus can be used to identify entities as being of a given media

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

Freed, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 10]  RFC 2048 MIME Registration Procedures November 1996

          type.

タイプしてください。

    (2)   File extension(s) commonly used on one or more
          platforms to indicate that some file containing a given
          type of media.

(2) ファイル拡張子は、与えられたタイプのメディアを含んでいて、或るものがファイルされるのを示すのに1以上で一般的にプラットホームを使用しました。

    (3)   Macintosh File Type code(s) (4 octets) used to label
          files containing a given type of media.

(3) マッキントッシュFile Typeコード(4つの八重奏)は以前はよく与えられたタイプのメディアを含むファイルをラベルしていました。

   Such information is often quite useful to implementors and if
   available should be provided.

そのような情報はかなりしばしば作成者の役に立ちます、そして、利用可能であるなら、提供するべきです。

2.3.  Registration Procedure

2.3. 登録手順

   The following procedure has been implemented by the IANA for review
   and approval of new media types.  This is not a formal standards
   process, but rather an administrative procedure intended to allow
   community comment and sanity checking without excessive time delay.
   For registration in the IETF tree, the normal IETF processes should
   be followed, treating posting of an internet-draft and announcement
   on the ietf-types list (as described in the next subsection) as a
   first step.  For registrations in the vendor or personal tree, the
   initial review step described below may be omitted and the type
   registered directly by submitting the template and an explanation
   directly to IANA (at iana@iana.org).  However, authors of vendor or
   personal media type specifications are encouraged to seek community
   review and comment whenever that is feasible.

以下の手順はニューメディアタイプのレビューと承認のためにIANAによって実装されました。 これは、正規の標準規格プロセスではなく、むしろ共同体コメントを許容することを意図する行政手続と過度の時間遅れなしでチェックする正気です。 IETF木での登録において、正常なIETFプロセスは続かれるべきです、第一歩としてietf-タイプリスト(次の小区分で説明されるように)におけるインターネット草稿と発表の任命を扱って。 ベンダーか個人的な木の登録証明書において、以下で説明された初期のレビューステップは省略されたかもしれません、そして、タイプは直接直接IANA( iana@iana.org の)にテンプレートと説明を提出することによって、登録しました。 しかしながら、それが可能であるときはいつも、ベンダーか人的メディアタイプ仕様の作者が共同体レビューとコメントを求めるよう奨励されます。

2.3.1.  Present the Media Type to the Community for Review

2.3.1. レビューのために共同体へのタイプをメディアに提示してください。

   Send a proposed media type registration to the "ietf-types@iana.org"
   mailing list for a two week review period.  This mailing list has
   been established for the purpose of reviewing proposed media and
   access types. Proposed media types are not formally registered and
   must not be used; the "x-" prefix specified in RFC 2045 can be used
   until registration is complete.

2週間のレビューの期間、" ietf-types@iana.org "メーリングリストへの登録を提案されたメディアタイプに送ってください。 このメーリングリストは提案されたメディアとアクセス型を批評する目的のために確立されました。 提案されたメディアタイプを、正式に示さないで、使用してはいけません。 登録が完全になるまで、RFC2045で指定された「x」接頭語は使用できます。

   The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback
   on the choice of type/subtype name, the unambiguity of the references
   with respect to versions and external profiling information, and a
   review of any interoperability or security considerations. The
   submitter may submit a revised registration, or withdraw the
   registration completely, at any time.

公共の任命の意図はタイプ/「副-タイプ」名の選択、バージョンと外部のプロフィール情報に関する参照の「非-あいまいさ」、およびどんな相互運用性やセキュリティ問題のレビューのコメントとフィードバックにも請求することです。 submitterは改訂された登録を提出するか、または完全で、いつでも、登録を引き下がらせるかもしれません。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[11ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

2.3.2.  IESG Approval

2.3.2. IESG承認

   Media types registered in the IETF tree must be submitted to the IESG
   for approval.

承認のためにIETF木に示されたメディアタイプをIESGに提出しなければなりません。

2.3.3.  IANA Registration

2.3.3. IANA登録

   Provided that the media type meets the requirements for media types
   and has obtained approval that is necessary, the author may submit
   the registration request to the IANA, which will register the media
   type and make the media type registration available to the community.

メディアタイプがメディアタイプのために条件を満たして、必要な承認を得たならば、作者は、メディアに登録要求をIANAに提出して、共同体に利用可能な登録をタイプさせるかもしれません。(IANAはメディアタイプを示すでしょう)。

2.4.  Comments on Media Type Registrations

2.4. メディアのコメントは登録証明書をタイプします。

   Comments on registered media types may be submitted by members of the
   community to IANA.  These comments will be passed on to the "owner"
   of the media type if possible.  Submitters of comments may request
   that their comment be attached to the media type registration itself,
   and if IANA approves of this the comment will be made accessible in
   conjunction with the type registration itself.

登録されたメディアタイプのコメントは共同体のメンバーによってIANAに提出されるかもしれません。 できれば、これらのコメントはメディアタイプの「所有者」に通過されるでしょう。 コメントのSubmittersは、彼らのコメントがメディアタイプ登録自体に付けられているよう要求するかもしれません、そして、IANAがこれに賛成すると、コメントをタイプ登録自体に関連してアクセスしやすくするでしょう。

2.5.  Location of Registered Media Type List

2.5. 登録されたメディア型の並びの位置

   Media type registrations will be posted in the anonymous FTP
   directory "ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/"
   and all registered media types will be listed in the periodically
   issued "Assigned Numbers" RFC [currently STD 2, RFC 1700].  The media
   type description and other supporting material may also be published
   as an Informational RFC by sending it to "rfc-editor@isi.edu" (please
   follow the instructions to RFC authors [RFC-1543]).

タイプ登録証明書が" ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/ "という公開FTPディレクトリに掲示された、登録されたメディアが皆、タイプであったならそうするメディアは定期的に発行された「規定番号」RFC[現在のSTD2、RFC1700]に記載されるでしょう。 また、メディア型記述と他のサポートの材料は、Informational RFCとして" rfc-editor@isi.edu "にそれを送ることによって、発行されるかもしれません(RFC作者[RFC-1543]に指示に従ってください)。

2.6.  IANA Procedures for Registering Media Types

2.6. メディアタイプを示すためのIANA手順

   The IANA will only register media types in the IETF tree in response
   to a communication from the IESG stating that a given registration
   has been approved. Vendor and personal types will be registered by
   the IANA automatically and without any formal review as long as the
   following minimal conditions are met:

IANAはIETF木に与えられた登録が承認されたと述べるIESGからのコミュニケーションに対応してメディアタイプを示すだけでしょう。 以下の極小条件が満たされる限り、ベンダーと個人的なタイプは自動的と少しも正式なレビューなしでIANAによって示されるでしょう:

    (1)   Media types must function as an actual media format.
          In particular, character sets and transfer encodings
          may not be registered as media types.

(1) メディアタイプは実際のメディア形式として機能しなければなりません。 特に、文字集合と転送encodingsはメディアタイプとして登録されないかもしれません。

    (2)   All media types must have properly formed type and
          subtype names. All type names must be defined by a
          standards-track RFC. All subtype names must be unique,
          must conform to the MIME grammar for such names, and
          must contain the proper tree prefix.

(2) すべてのメディアタイプには、成形式と「副-タイプ」名が適切になければなりません。 標準化過程RFCはすべての型名を定義しなければなりません。 すべての「副-タイプ」名が、ユニークでなければならなく、そのような名前のためのMIME文法に従わなければならなくて、適切な木の接頭語を含まなければなりません。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[12ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

    (3)   Types registered in the personal tree must either
          provide a format specification or a pointer to one.

(3) 個人的な木に示されたタイプは書式仕様か指針を1つに提供しなければなりません。

    (4)   Any security considerations given must not be obviously
          bogus. (It is neither possible nor necessary for the
          IANA to conduct a comprehensive security review of
          media type registrations.  Nevertheless, IANA has the
          authority to identify obviously incompetent material
          and exclude it.)

(4) 与えられたどんなセキュリティ問題も明らかににせであるはずがありません。 (IANAがメディアタイプ登録証明書の包括的安全保障レビューを行うのは、可能でなくて、また必要ではありません。 それにもかかわらず、IANAには、明らかに脆い材料を特定して、それを除く権威があります。)

2.7.  Change Control

2.7. 変化コントロール

   Once a media type has been published by IANA, the author may request
   a change to its definition. The descriptions of the different
   registration trees above designate the "owners" of each type of
   registration. The change request follows the same procedure as the
   registration request:

メディアタイプがIANAによっていったん発行されると、作者は定義への変化を要求するかもしれません。 上の異なった登録木の記述はそれぞれのタイプの登録の「所有者」を指定します。 変更要求は登録要求と同じ手順に従います:

    (1)   Publish the revised template on the ietf-types list.

(1) ietf-タイプリストで改訂されたテンプレートを発行してください。

    (2)   Leave at least two weeks for comments.

(2) 少なくとも2週間、コメントにいなくなってください。

    (3)   Publish using IANA after formal review if required.

(3) 必要なら、正式なレビューの後にIANAを使用して、発行してください。

   Changes should be requested only when there are serious omission 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.

広められた仕様に重大な省略か誤りがあるときだけ、変化は要求されるべきです。 レビューが必要であるときに、無効の新しい定義で前の定義で有効であった実体をレンダリングするなら、変更要求は否定されるかもしれません。

   The owner of a content type may pass responsibility for the content
   type to another person or agency by informing IANA and the ietf-types
   list; this can be done without discussion or review.

content typeの所有者はIANAとietf-タイプリストを知らせることによって、別の人か政府機関にcontent typeへの責任を渡すかもしれません。 議論もレビューなしでこれができます。

   The IESG may reassign responsibility for a media type. The most
   common case of this will be to enable changes to be made to types
   where the author of the registration has died, moved out of contact
   or is otherwise unable to make changes that are important to the
   community.

IESGはメディアタイプのために責任を再選任するかもしれません。 この最も一般的なケースは、変更が登録の作者が死んだタイプに行われるのを可能にするためにあるか、接触から引っ越すか、またはそうでなければ、共同体に重要な変更を行うことができません。

   Media type registrations may not be deleted; media types which are no
   longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE by a
   change to their "intended use" field; such media types will be
   clearly marked in the lists published by IANA.

メディアタイプ登録証明書は削除されないかもしれません。 彼らの「意図している使用」への変化による宣言しているOBSOLETEが分野であったかもしれないならもう使用に適切であることは信じられていないメディアタイプ。 そのようなメディアタイプはIANAによって発表されたリストで明確にマークされるでしょう。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[13ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

2.8.  Registration Template

2.8. 登録テンプレート

     To: ietf-types@iana.org
     Subject: Registration of MIME media type XXX/YYY

To: ietf-types@iana.org Subject: MIMEメディアタイプXXX/YYYの登録

     MIME media type name:

MIMEメディア型名:

     MIME subtype name:

MIME「副-タイプ」は以下を命名します。

     Required parameters:

必要なパラメタ:

     Optional parameters:

任意のパラメタ:

     Encoding considerations:

問題をコード化します:

     Security considerations:

セキュリティ問題:

     Interoperability considerations:

相互運用性問題:

     Published specification:

広められた仕様:

     Applications which use this media type:

このメディアタイプを使用するアプリケーション:

     Additional information:

追加情報:

       Magic number(s):
       File extension(s):
       Macintosh File Type Code(s):

マジックナンバー(s): ファイル拡張子(s): マッキントッシュファイルタイプは(s)をコード化します:

     Person & email address to contact for further information:

詳細のために連絡する人とEメールアドレス:

     Intended usage:

意図している用法:

     (One of COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE)

(1つ、コモン使用か時代遅れで制限されて、

     Author/Change controller:

コントローラを書くか、または変えてください:

     (Any other information that the author deems interesting may be
     added below this line.)

(作者がおもしろいと考えるいかなる他の情報もこの系列の下で加えられるかもしれません。)

3.  External Body Access Types

3. 外部のボディーアクセス型

   RFC 2046 defines the message/external-body media type, whereby a MIME
   entity can act as pointer to the actual body data in lieu of
   including the data directly in the entity body. Each
   message/external-body reference specifies an access type, which
   determines the mechanism used to retrieve the actual body data. RFC
   2046 defines an initial set of access types, but allows for the

RFC2046は外部のメッセージ/ボディーメディアタイプを定義します。(直接実体本体にデータを含んでいることの代わりにMIME実体は指針としてタイプで実際のボディーデータに機能できます)。 それぞれの外部のメッセージ/ボディー参照はアクセス型を指定します。(そのアクセス型は、メカニズムが以前はよく実際のボディーデータを検索していたと決心しています)。 RFC2046はアクセスのセットがタイプしますが、考慮するイニシャルを定義します。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[14ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

   registration of additional access types to accommodate new retrieval
   mechanisms.

新しい回収機構に対応する追加アクセス型の登録。

3.1.  Registration Requirements

3.1. 登録要件

   New access type specifications must conform to a number of
   requirements as described below.

新しいアクセス型仕様は以下で説明されるように多くの要件に従わなければなりません。

3.1.1.  Naming Requirements

3.1.1. 要件を命名します。

   Each access type must have a unique name.  This name appears in the
   access-type parameter in the message/external-body content-type
   header field, and must conform to MIME content type parameter syntax.

各アクセス型には、ユニークな名前がなければなりません。 この名前は、外部のメッセージ/ボディーcontent typeヘッダーフィールドにおけるアクセス型パラメタに現れて、MIME content typeパラメタ構文に従わなければなりません。

3.1.2.  Mechanism Specification Requirements

3.1.2. メカニズム仕様書要求事項

   All of the protocols, transports, and procedures used by a given
   access type must be described, either in the specification of the
   access type itself or in some other publicly available specification,
   in sufficient detail for the access type to be implemented by any
   competent implementor.  Use of secret and/or proprietary methods in
   access types are expressly prohibited. The restrictions imposed by
   RFC 1602 on the standardization of patented algorithms must be
   respected as well.

アクセス型自身の仕様かある他の公的に利用可能な仕様で与えられたアクセス型によって用いられたプロトコル、輸送、および手順のすべてについて説明しなければなりません、どんな有能な作成者もアクセス型を実装することができるくらい詳細に。 アクセス型における秘密の、そして/または、独占であるメソッドの使用は明白に禁止されています。 また、RFC1602によって特許をとられたアルゴリズムの標準化に課された制限を尊敬しなければなりません。

3.1.3.  Publication Requirements

3.1.3. 公表要件

   All access types must be described by an RFC. The RFC may be
   informational rather than standards-track, although standard-track
   review and approval are encouraged for all access types.

RFCはすべてのアクセス型を説明しなければなりません。 標準の道のレビューと承認はすべてのアクセス型のために奨励されますが、RFCは標準化過程よりむしろ情報であるかもしれません。

3.1.4.  Security Requirements

3.1.4. セキュリティ要件

   Any known security issues that arise from the use of the access type
   must be completely and fully described. It is not required that the
   access type be secure or that it be free from risks, but that the
   known risks be identified.  Publication of a new access type does not
   require an exhaustive security review, and the security
   considerations section is subject to continuing evaluation.
   Additional security considerations should be addressed by publishing
   revised versions of the access type specification.

アクセス型の使用から起こるどんな知られている安全保障問題についても完全に、そして完全に説明しなければなりません。 アクセス型が安全であるか、それにはリスクがありませんが、または知られている危険が特定されるのが必要ではありません。 新しいアクセス型の公表は評価を続けているレビュー、およびセキュリティ問題部を条件としている徹底的なセキュリティを必要としません。 追加担保問題はアクセス型仕様の出版改訂版によって扱われるべきです。

3.2.  Registration Procedure

3.2. 登録手順

   Registration of a new access type starts with the construction of a
   draft of an RFC.

新しいアクセス型の登録はRFCの草稿の工事から始まります。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[15ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

3.2.1.  Present the Access Type to the Community

3.2.1. 共同体にアクセス型を提示してください。

   Send a proposed access type specification to the "ietf-
   types@iana.org" mailing list for a two week review period.  This
   mailing list has been established for the purpose of reviewing
   proposed access and media types.  Proposed access types are not
   formally registered and must not be used.

2週間のレビューの期間、「ietf types@iana.org 」メーリングリストに提案されたアクセス型仕様を送ってください。 このメーリングリストは提案されたアクセスとメディアタイプを見直す目的のために確立されました。 提案されたアクセス型を、正式に示さないで、使用してはいけません。

   The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback
   on the access type specification and a review of any security
   considerations.

公共の任命の意図はアクセス型仕様とどんなセキュリティ問題のレビューのコメントとフィードバックにも請求することです。

3.2.2.  Access Type Reviewer

3.2.2. アクセス型評論家

   When the two week period has passed, the access type reviewer, who is
   appointed by the IETF Applications Area Director, either forwards the
   request to iana@isi.edu, or rejects it because of significant
   objections raised on the list.

2週間の期間が経過したとき、リストで上げられた重要な反論のために、アクセス型評論家(IETF Applications Areaディレクターによって任命される)は、要求を iana@isi.edu に転送するか、またはそれを拒絶します。

   Decisions made by the reviewer must be posted to the ietf-types
   mailing list within 14 days. Decisions made by the reviewer may be
   appealed to the IESG.

14日以内にietf-タイプメーリングリストに評論家によってされた決定を掲示しなければなりません。 評論家によってされた決定はIESGに上告されるかもしれません。

3.2.3.  IANA Registration

3.2.3. IANA登録

   Provided that the access type has either passed review or has been
   successfully appealed to the IESG, the IANA will register the access
   type and make the registration available to the community. The
   specification of the access type must also be published as an RFC.
   Informational RFCs are published by sending them to "rfc-
   editor@isi.edu" (please follow the instructions to RFC authors [RFC-
   1543]).

アクセス型がレビューに合格するか、または首尾よくIESGに上告されたならば、IANAはアクセス型を示して、登録を共同体に利用可能にするでしょう。 また、RFCとしてアクセス型の仕様を発表しなければなりません。 情報のRFCsは、「rfc editor@isi.edu 」に彼らを送ることによって、発行されます(RFC作者[RFC1543]に指示に従ってください)。

3.3.  Location of Registered Access Type List

3.3. 登録されたアクセス型の並びの位置

   Access type registrations will be posted in the anonymous FTP
   directory "ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/access-types/"
   and all registered access types will be listed in the periodically
   issued "Assigned Numbers" RFC [currently RFC-1700].

アクセス型登録証明書は" ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/access-types/ "という公開FTPディレクトリに掲示されるでしょう、そして、すべての登録されたアクセス型が定期的に発行された「規定番号」RFC[現在のRFC-1700]に記載されるでしょう。

3.4.  IANA Procedures for Registering Access Types

3.4. アクセス型を示すためのIANA手順

   The identity of the access type reviewer is communicated to the IANA
   by the IESG.  The IANA then only acts in response to access type
   definitions that either are approved by the access type reviewer and
   forwarded by the reviewer to the IANA for registration, or in
   response to a communication from the IESG that an access type
   definition appeal has overturned the access type reviewer's ruling.

アクセス型評論家のアイデンティティはIESGによってIANAに伝えられます。 そして、IANAはアクセス型評論家によって承認されて、登録のために評論家によってIANAに送られるか、アクセス型定義上告が持っているIESGからのコミュニケーションに対応のどちらかだってアクセス型評論家の判決をひっくり返したアクセス型定義に対応して行動するだけです。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 16]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[16ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

4.  Transfer Encodings

4. 転送Encodings

   Transfer encodings are tranformations applied to MIME media types
   after conversion to the media type's canonical form.  Transfer
   encodings are used for several purposes:

転送encodingsはメディアタイプの標準形への変換の後にMIMEメディアタイプに適用されたtranformationsです。 転送encodingsはいくつかの目的に使用されます:

    (1)   Many transports, especially message transports, can
          only handle data consisting of relatively short lines
          of text. There can also be severe restrictions on what
          characters can be used in these lines of text -- some
          transports are restricted to a small subset of US-ASCII
          and others cannot handle certain character sequences.
          Transfer encodings are used to transform binary data
          into textual form that can survive such transports.
          Examples of this sort of transfer encoding include the
          base64 and quoted-printable transfer encodings defined
          in RFC 2045.

(1) 多くの輸送(特にメッセージ転送)がテキストの比較的短い系列から成るデータを扱うことができるだけです。 また、テキストのこれらの系列にどんなキャラクタを使用できるかに関する厳しい制限があることができます--いくつかの輸送が米国-ASCIIの小さい部分集合に制限されます、そして、他のものはあるキャラクタシーケンスを扱うことができません。 転送encodingsは、バイナリ・データをそのような輸送を乗り切ることができる原文のフォームに変えるのに使用されます。 この種類の転送コード化に関する例はRFC2045で定義されたbase64と引用されて印刷可能な転送encodingsを含んでいます。

    (2)   Image, audio, video, and even application entities are
          sometimes quite large. Compression algorithms are often
          quite effective in reducing the size of large entities.
          Transfer encodings can be used to apply general-purpose
          non-lossy compression algorithms to MIME entities.

(2) イメージ、オーディオ、ビデオ、およびアプリケーション実体さえ時々かなり大きいです。 圧縮アルゴリズムは大きい実体のサイズを減少させるのにおいてしばしばかなり効果的です。 汎用非非可逆圧縮アルゴリズムをMIME実体に適用するのに転送encodingsを使用できます。

    (3)   Transport encodings can be defined as a means of
          representing existing encoding formats in a MIME
          context.

(3) MIME文脈で形式をコード化しながら存在を表す手段と輸送encodingsを定義できます。

   IMPORTANT:  The standardization of a large numbers of different
   transfer encodings is seen as a significant barrier to widespread
   interoperability and is expressely discouraged.  Nevertheless, the
   following procedure has been defined to provide a means of defining
   additional transfer encodings, should standardization actually be
   justified.

重要: 多くの異なった転送encodingsの標準化は、重要なバリアと広範囲の相互運用性に考えられて、expresselyにお勧めできないです。 それにもかかわらず、以下の手順は追加転送encodingsを定義する手段を提供するために定義されました、標準化が実際に正当化されるなら。

4.1.  Transfer Encoding Requirements

4.1. 要件をコード化して、移してください。

   Transfer encoding specifications must conform to a number of
   requirements as described below.

仕様をコード化する転送は以下で説明されるように多くの要件に従わなければなりません。

4.1.1.  Naming Requirements

4.1.1. 要件を命名します。

   Each transfer encoding must have a unique name.  This name appears in
   the Content-Transfer-Encoding header field and must conform to the
   syntax of that field.

それぞれの転送コード化には、ユニークな名前がなければなりません。 この名前は、Content転送コード化ヘッダーフィールドに現れて、その分野の構文に従わなければなりません。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 17]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[17ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

4.1.2.  Algorithm Specification Requirements

4.1.2. アルゴリズム仕様書要求事項

   All of the algorithms used in a transfer encoding (e.g.  conversion
   to printable form, compression) must be described in their entirety
   in the transfer encoding specification.  Use of secret and/or
   proprietary algorithms in standardized transfer encodings are
   expressly prohibited. The restrictions imposed by RFC 1602 on the
   standardization of patented algorithms must be respected as well.

仕様をコード化する転送で転送コード化に使用されるアルゴリズムのすべてについて全体として説明しなければなりません(例えば、印刷可能なフォーム、圧縮への変換)。 標準化された転送encodingsにおける秘密の、そして/または、独占であるアルゴリズムの使用は明白に禁止されています。 また、RFC1602によって特許をとられたアルゴリズムの標準化に課された制限を尊敬しなければなりません。

4.1.3.  Input Domain Requirements

4.1.3. 入力ドメイン要求性

   All transfer encodings must be applicable to an arbitrary sequence of
   octets of any length.  Dependence on particular input forms is not
   allowed.

すべての転送encodingsがどんな長さの八重奏の気紛れな順番にも適切であるに違いありません。 特定の入力形式への依存は許容されていません。

   It should be noted that the 7bit and 8bit encodings do not conform to
   this requirement. Aside from the undesireability of having
   specialized encodings, the intent here is to forbid the addition of
   additional encodings along the lines of 7bit and 8bit.

7ビットと8ビットのencodingsがこの要件に一致していないことに注意されるべきです。 encodingsを専門にしたundesireabilityは別として、ここの意図は7ビットと8ビットの系列に沿って追加encodingsの追加を禁じることです。

4.1.4.  Output Range Requirements

4.1.4. 出力範囲要件

   There is no requirement that a particular tranfer encoding produce a
   particular form of encoded output.  However, the output format for
   each transfer encoding must be fully and completely documented.  In
   particular, each specification must clearly state whether the output
   format always lies within the confines of 7bit data, 8bit data, or is
   simply pure binary data.

特定のtranferコード化が特定の形式のコード化された出力を起こすという要件が全くありません。 しかしながら、それぞれの転送コード化のための出力書式を完全に、そして完全に記録しなければなりません。 特に、各仕様は、出力形式がいつも7bit dataの境界、8bit dataに属すか、単に純粋なバイナリ・データであるかを明確に述べなければなりません。

4.1.5.  Data Integrity and Generality Requirements

4.1.5. データの保全と一般性要件

   All transfer encodings must be fully invertible on any platform; it
   must be possible for anyone to recover the original data by
   performing the corresponding decoding operation.  Note that this
   requirement effectively excludes all forms of lossy compression as
   well as all forms of encryption from use as a transfer encoding.

すべての転送encodingsがどんなプラットホームでも完全にinvertibleでなければなりません。 だれでも操作を解読しながら対応を実行することによってオリジナルのデータを回復するのは、可能であるに違いありません。 事実上、この要件が転送コード化として使用からのすべての形式の暗号化と同様にすべてのフォームの非可逆圧縮を除くことに注意してください。

4.1.6.  New Functionality Requirements

4.1.6. 新しい機能性要件

   All transfer encodings must provide some sort of new functionality.
   Some degree of functionality overlap with previously defined transfer
   encodings is acceptable, but any new transfer encoding must also
   offer something no other transfer encoding provides.

すべての転送encodingsがある種の新しい機能性を提供しなければなりません。 以前に定義された転送encodingsとの機能性オーバラップがいくらかの許容できますが、また、どんな新しい転送コード化もコード化が供給しない他の転送を全く何かに提供しなければなりません。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 18]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[18ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

4.2.  Transfer Encoding Definition Procedure

4.2. 定義手順をコード化して、移してください。

   Definition of a new transfer encoding starts with the construction of
   a draft of a standards-track RFC.  The RFC must define the transfer
   encoding precisely and completely, and must also provide substantial
   justification for defining and standardizing a new transfer encoding.
   This specification must then be presented to the IESG for
   consideration.  The IESG can

標準化過程RFCの草稿の工事で始めをコード化する新しい転送の定義。 RFCは転送コード化を正確に、そして完全に定義しなければならなくて、また、新しい転送コード化を定義して、標準化するためのかなりの正当化を提供しなければなりません。 そして、考慮のためにこの仕様をIESGに提示しなければなりません。 IESGはそうすることができます。

    (1)   reject the specification outright as being
          inappropriate for standardization,

(1) 標準化に不適当であるとして仕様を完全に拒絶してください。

    (2)   approve the formation of an IETF working group to work
          on the specification in accordance with IETF
          procedures, or,

(2) または、IETF手順によると、仕様に取り組むためにIETFワーキンググループの構成を承認してください。

    (3)   accept the specification as-is and put it directly on
          the standards track.

(3) 仕様がそのままであると受け入れてください、そして、直接それを標準化過程に置いてください。

   Transfer encoding specifications on the standards track follow normal
   IETF rules for standards track documents.  A transfer encoding is
   considered to be defined and available for use once it is on the
   standards track.

転送コード化仕様は標準化過程の上で標準化過程ドキュメントのための正常なIETF規則に従います。 標準化過程の上にそれがいったんあると、使用に定義されていて転送コード化が利用可能であると考えられます。

4.3.  IANA Procedures for Transfer Encoding Registration

4.3. 登録をコード化する転送のためのIANA手順

   There is no need for a special procedure for registering Transfer
   Encodings with the IANA. All legitimate transfer encoding
   registrations must appear as a standards-track RFC, so it is the
   IESG's responsibility to notify the IANA when a new transfer encoding
   has been approved.

IANAにTransfer Encodingsを登録するための特別な手順の必要は全くありません。 登録証明書をコード化するすべての正統の転送が標準化過程RFCとして現れなければならないので、それは新しい転送コード化が承認されたときIANAに通知するIESGの責任です。

4.4.  Location of Registered Transfer Encodings List

4.4. 登録された転送Encodingsリストの位置

   Transfer encoding registrations will be posted in the anonymous FTP
   directory "ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/transfer-
   encodings/" and all registered transfer encodings will be listed in
   the periodically issued "Assigned Numbers" RFC [currently RFC-1700].

登録証明書をコード化する転送が公開FTPディレクトリ「 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/transfer- encodings/」に掲示されるでしょう、そして、すべての登録された転送encodingsが定期的に発行された「規定番号」RFC[現在のRFC-1700]に記載されるでしょう。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 19]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[19ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

5.  Authors' Addresses

5. 作者のアドレス

   For more information, the authors of this document are best
   contacted via Internet mail:

詳しくは、インターネット・メールでこのドキュメントの作者に連絡するのは最も良いです:

   Ned Freed
   Innosoft International, Inc.
   1050 East Garvey Avenue South
   West Covina, CA 91790
   USA

ネッドは東ガーヴェーアベニューSouth West Innosoftの国際Inc.1050カリフォルニア91790コビーナ(米国)を解放しました。

   Phone: +1 818 919 3600
   Fax:   +1 818 919 3614
   EMail: ned@innosoft.com

以下に電話をしてください。 +1 818 919、3600Fax: +1 3614年の818 919メール: ned@innosoft.com

   John Klensin
   MCI
   2100 Reston Parkway
   Reston, VA 22091

ジョンKlensin MCI2100レストンParkwayレストン、ヴァージニア 22091

   Phone: +1 703 715-7361
   Fax:   +1 703 715-7436
   EMail: klensin@mci.net

以下に電話をしてください。 +1 703 715-7361Fax: +1 703 715-7436 メールしてください: klensin@mci.net

   Jon Postel
   USC/Information Sciences Institute
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina del Rey, CA  90292
   USA

ジョンポステルUSC/Information Sciences Institute4676海軍本部Wayマリナデルレイ、カリフォルニア90292米国

   Phone: +1 310 822 1511
   Fax:   +1 310 823 6714
   EMail: Postel@ISI.EDU

以下に電話をしてください。 +1 310 822、1511Fax: +1 6714年の310 823メール: Postel@ISI.EDU

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 20]

RFC 2048              MIME Registration Procedures         November 1996

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[20ページ]RFC2048は登録手順1996年11月にまねます。

Appendix A -- Grandfathered Media Types

付録A--除外されたメディアタイプ

   A number of media types, registered prior to 1996, would, if
   registered under the guidelines in this document, be placed into
   either the vendor or personal trees.  Reregistration of those types
   to reflect the appropriate trees is encouraged, but not required.
   Ownership and change control principles outlined in this document
   apply to those types as if they had been registered in the trees
   described above.

1996年前に示された多くのメディアタイプがそうするでしょう、ガイドラインの下で本書では登録されて、ベンダーか個人的な木に置かれるなら。 適切な木を反映するそういったタイプの人のReregistrationは奨励されますが、必要ではありません。 まるで彼らが上で説明された木に登録されたかのように原則が概説した所有権と変化コントロールは本書ではそういったタイプの人に申請されます。

Freed, et. al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 21]

etフリード、アル。 最も良い現在の習慣[21ページ]