I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03.txt. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ . Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO OBJECTION. I found the following minor issues, which I think SHOULD be clarified before publication: - Section 1.1 is not clear about what are the issues with the media type registration process described in RFC 6838. An hint about an explanation is only given at the end of section 3 when the author gives some details about the history. I think the background section should better highlight what are the main issues with RFC 6838 before defining an updated registration procedure. - In section 2.1, the draft mentions that new top-level type MUST be defined in a Standard Track RFC. This is a difference from section 3.1 in RFC 6838, which mentions that a media type can be registered with a Standards Track, a BCP, an Informational or an Experimental track document as soon as there is an IETF consensus, and I think it should be highlighted more clearly. - This may be a layperson misunderstanding, but the draft does not mention the concept of Registration trees introduced in section 3 of RFC 6838, while I think some examples that justify the writing of the current draft could have been addressed using a method described there. For instance, in section 3 of the draft, the example of the undocumented use of the 'font' top level type could have been adressed by having the actors using this type use 'vnd.font' or 'x.font' instead to prove the point that this top tier media type is useful while 'font' was documented in a draft following the Standards track. I wonder why the author does not encourage the use of a transitory faceted media type to accompany the registration of a new top-tier media type. The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) with the document: - In section 3, on page 7, 'recommended' should be used rather than 'recommened' at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the section.