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

Adam Roach <> Wed, 14 August 2019 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771DA120DF4; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NF0GaGzZ3BCr; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 241B9120DF2; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x7EJEUNu014360 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:14:31 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1565810072; bh=A6RWHbQHtUvzh3YA4rGMY0p9bbuI5C0wpes22qJWDO4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=tCpU+7RuihH01Ls1K4K8v6toYjSxy2uLgA6+HFq8XQwcv3G/FbNe4kzN5mYzvAC6S cYfhmntkcyYMfNx+vEJaj/5SM9cwpDWuJeMkgi2phoG0gQ5XYi7JX5A4bhXMk8CgCe r7l7RHoauT+/WDWZtd/yuOST7exCJi7ZmCaTaV/8=
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be
To: Christer Holmberg <>, Alexey Melnikov <>, The IESG <>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:14:24 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:14:43 -0000

On 8/14/19 2:12 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> 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  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 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
>> 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.

I've already approved the document. If you point me to the PR, I'll 
append its changes to the RFC Editor's note.