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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

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 [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.


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