Re: [MMUSIC] Updating SDP parameter registry with RFC3108 values

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 10/7/13 6:46 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> Is a process needed to create an errata? Wouldn't the fact that they
> appear in standards track RFCs be enough to include them in the SDP
> registry based on the SDP directorates (i.e. expert review)
> recommendation? I agree its not ideal that these older RFCs didn't
> include an IANA considerations section but I think that rather than
> spending lots of cycles on this that the SDP directorate could just
> request IANA to register them to avoid any future overlap issues.

Unfortunately there are rules. The rules for a particular IANA registry 
are defined when the registry is created. If you check in the registry, 
it points to RFC4566. Section 8.2.4 of RFC4566 says that additions to 
this registry must follow the "Specification Required" policy defined in 
RFC2434. And the specification must include a particular set of 
information. (That would typically be in an IANA considerations section.)

At the moment all we have is RFC3108, and it doesn't have an IANA 
considerations section at all. It certainly doesn't give the info needed 
for an addition to that registry.

IIUC, an errata to 3108 wouldn't, on its own, be sufficient either. I 
think we will need a new RFC that does it. This should probably be an 
update to 3108. An errata is perhaps a formal way to trigger that.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards, Christian
>
> On 8/10/2013 4:44 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 10/6/13 11:28 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>> Hello Flemming,
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing out that thread. If Paul as one of the SDP
>>> directorate is OK with it then I don't have any issue with the -cs
>>> draft.
>>>
>>> I think though that the addresstype and nettype from RFC3108 still needs
>>> to be picked up by the IANA registry.
>>
>> I agree. I'm not sure what the best way to accomplish that is.
>> Perhaps an errata to 3108, pointing out that it fails to register its
>> new nettype and addrtypes with IANA would start the process. Or is
>> there a better way?
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>>> Regards, Christian
>>>
>>> On 7/10/2013 12:38 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>>> Hi Christian
>>>>
>>>> We had a thread on this particular issue about a year ago. See
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09599.html
>>>>
>>>> and the conclusion in
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09621.html
>>>>
>>>> I hope this addresses your concern as it relates to -cs draft.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> -- Flemming
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/19/13 8:22 AM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>>>> FYI, I was looking at the IANA registry for SDP parameters (
>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml)
>>>>> and noticed that there was a registration for addrtype E164 linked to
>>>>> this CS draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a problem that there's already an addrtype E164 in RFC3108.
>>>>> This earlier usage of E164 should have been registered with IANA but
>>>>> seems to have been missed. To complicate things the format of the
>>>>> RFC3108 E164 addrtype is different to the one in the CS draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've already raised this with IANA but I thought it would be worth
>>>>> mentioning in MMUSIC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>