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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 14 August 2019 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771DA120DF4; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NF0GaGzZ3BCr; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 241B9120DF2; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (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 adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; 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: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp@ietf.org>
References: <156536166262.15946.384757988181068904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <HE1PR07MB31616472644ED221A1965B8F93D60@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7F70A131-8BE5-425A-B6C7-6BD503D195E2@ericsson.com> <a1c85143-2e4b-4f4e-8ac4-1a0f396634aa@www.fastmail.com> <BDB5931C-7518-45A6-895F-D9BF62A289BF@ericsson.com> <c599715d-c0c4-4cc6-bbc2-38c72aef928f@www.fastmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3161377AEE19A59859A926C693AD0@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5f36801e-bfa1-c808-b130-d7d249483bae@nostrum.com> <AM4PR07MB3156C7D65071D7B7945E689293AD0@AM4PR07MB3156.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <5f8ce202-930d-1d2e-7099-9ec378cc1c19@nostrum.com>
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: <AM4PR07MB3156C7D65071D7B7945E689293AD0@AM4PR07MB3156.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/8xIlVFtZ5xj08N-I7V1kw9VkbrI>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=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 userN@organizationY.com.  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 userN@gmail.com. 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.


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

/a