Re: [MMUSIC] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with DISCUSS)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

...

>>>>>      But, my comment regarding "Organization or individuals" was that I
>>>>>      am not aware of any IANA registry where we indicate who
>>>>>      is allowed to update an entry. Why do you think IANA needs that
>>>>>      information?
>>>> This is less of an issue for "Specification Required", but it is 
>>>> certainly an issue for "Expert Review" registries.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following scenario (it has happened several times in the past as far as I know):
>>>>
>>>> At some point an item X is registered by [e-mail].  10 
>>>> years later the person is no longer working for Organization Y. The 
>>>> person contacts IANA and attempt to change the registration from a 
>>>> new email address [e-mail]. If the registry doesn't say 
>>>> whether this was a personal registration (and thus the request should 
>>>> be approved, assuming IANA can prove that this is the same person) or for a company (in which case the 
>>>> change request should be denied and the contact email should be updated to another person representing 
>>>> Organization Y), then making changes/updates becomes difficult.
>>> Well, in case of "Specification Required" an individual can't just say that he/she wants to change something.
>>>
>>> There were similar problems recently when a specification was originally developed by an organization and
>>> later on was taken as a work item in an SDO.	 
>>
>>> Anyway, if you want to make updates to registration easier, Contant and Change Controller should be
>>> included in an IANA registration template.
>>> To me this kind of "Change control" is something that should be discussed with a wider audience. Individual
>>> drafts should not make their own rules. Is there any registry that have these kind of change control rules?
>>
>> It's not unheard of. See, e.g., the tables at https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml
>>
> The problems that Alexey cites have caused real issues in the past. 
> Given that this is an administrative issue rather than a technical one, I'm comfortable taking an executive decision to fix the
> text in an RFC Editor's note per Alexey's comment, and sending the document into the queue.

There is still one PR, based on a few remaining issues raised by Alissa. Is it ok if we merge the PR, submit a -40 version, and the send it to the queue?

We can put back the "Organization or individuals having the change control" part in the draft at the same time, so you don' t need to do it.

Regards,

Christer