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

On 10/9/13 6:47 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> We don't need an RFC to do it. We existed for years without an IANA registration section but still had IANA registrations.
>
> My understanding of the current rule is that they need to exist, and give instructions on how to write them. This is to make their job easier and their output more efficient. There is nothing that says that IANA cannot address issues regarding missing material from reading the rest of the RFC. After all, the entire RFC has IETF consensus.

Repeating what I just posted in another thread:

Just request it *how*?
If IANA receives an email asking them to make a change, they won't be 
doing their job unless they consult the existing registry and check the 
rules for changes/additions. If the rules call for an rfc and a specific 
template, then they need an rfc with that template filled out.

Note that these templates often carry information that isn't captured in 
the registry itself - depending on the registry reference to the document.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Keith
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Paul Kyzivat
>> Sent: 09 October 2013 23:29
>> To: Flemming Andreasen
>> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Updating SDP parameter registry with RFC3108 values
>>
>> On 10/9/13 4:59 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/9/13 12:19 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Having previously communicated with one of the RFC 3108 authors on this,
>>> I would ask for leniency here, not least considering that RFC 3108
>>> predates RFC 4566. In other words, I'd argue that we should simply add
>>> the missing registrations.
>>
>> I wasn't trying to be pejorative - just commenting on what seems
>> required to fix it.
>>
>> We just need *some* RFC to do it. It could be 4566bis. But if it isn't
>> one that explicitly updates 3108, then we should take care to instruct
>> IANA to make the registry point to 3108.
>>
>> 	Thanks,
>> 	Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>