[ietf-smtp] [IANA #823478] Protocol Action: 'SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes' to Proposed Standard (draft-klensin-smtp-521code-07.txt)

["Amanda Baber via RT" <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, 

Per Chris, we've added your name to the "Submitter" field for X.1.10 and X.3.2:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes

Thanks for your help and your patience. I'll send this along to the RFC Editor.

Amanda

On Sat May 16 06:29:10 2015, [e-mail] wrote:
> This sounds most reasonable to me.  Thanks, Chris.
> 
> b
> 
> On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Chris Newman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > The standards track information we have on the "Submitter" field is what's
> > in
> > RFC 5248:
> >
> > "The identity of the submitter, usually the document author."
> >
> > When a registration is revised, that does not change the fact there was a
> > previous submitter. So I believe adding the new submitter is the correct
> > interpretation because it provides both the most information and is most
> > likely
> > to include at least one useful name.
> >
> >                 - Chris
> >
> > --On May 15, 2015 18:25:23 -0400 John C Klensin <[e-mail]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Amanda,
> > >
> > > I'm adding Heather to the distribution for this because while
> > > the RFC Editor situations and the IANA ones are different (part
> > > of my point below), it interacts with another recent discussion
> > > or two.
> > >
> > > I might be the wrong person to ask because I tend to reason
> > > about these things forward from the IANA policies of 20 or 30
> > > years ago rather than backward from more recent decisions.
> > > With that caveat, I believe that most of your "submitter" fields
> > > are really "best contact if more information is needed or other
> > > issues arise".  On that basis and using the RFC 5248 registries
> > > and the discovery of "immanent" in the last 48 hours as an
> > > example, continuing to list Greg for any of those codes may be
> > > correct (because he was the lead author/editor of the document
> > > that defined them) but it is silly (because he has, AFAICT,
> > > dropped out and lost interest).
> > >
> > > In that regard, RFC authorship is used, much as some of us wish
> > > otherwise, to give credit.  We also use it as contact
> > > information if, for example, proposed errata appear and that
> > > purpose is often contradictory to the "credit" one after a few
> > > years have passed. For standards track materials, we also insist
> > > that the IESG be in the errata loop because it would not be
> > > sensible to allow the interpretations of an author/editor to
> > > formally change the interpretation of a standard.  I think you
> > > should be thinking about "submitter" in much the same way: make
> > > up whatever theories you like about what to put there as long as
> > > it is consistent (I can make a good case for "first to touch",
> > > "last to touch", or "first or last to touch whom we still know
> > > how to find and get to respond") but it seems to me that, if you
> > > have a designated expert who have been delegated by the IESG and
> > > the community to review changes, that is really the important
> > > contact information to list and that "submitter" is largely
> > > information for him or her.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >     john
> > >
> > >
> > > --On Friday, May 15, 2015 22:01 +0000 Amanda Baber via RT
> > > <[e-mail] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> John, Tony, Chris, and Barry,
> > >>
> > >> John and Tony, this is a question for you as authors of RFC
> > >> 5248, and also for Chris, as the IESG-designated expert for
> > >> the RFC 5248 registries. (I overlooked earlier this week this
> > >> when I was initially making the edits requested by
> > >> draft-klensin-smtp-521code-07.)
> > >>
> > >> When we're modifying a Class Sub-Code, Status Sub-Code, or
> > >> Enumerated Status Code entry, should we add the
> > >> author's/authors' name(s) to the "Submitter" field? See
> > >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes for
> > >> the current registry.
> > >>
> > >> Chris, can you send us the decision? IANA can't determine
> > >> consensus.
> > >>
> > >> John, I apologize for missing this.
> > >>
> > >> thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Amanda Baber
> > >> IANA Senior Specialist
> > >> ICANN
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >