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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>>     2) In 10.2:
>>>     
>>>     You removed the following text:
>>>     
>>>        o  Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the 
>>>            registration
>>>     
>>>       o  Organization or individuals having the change control
>>>     
>>>     I think removing (postal) Address is a good thing. However the 
>>>     rest of this is still needed, as IANA uses 
>>>     this information to decide whether a person/organization is 
>>>     allowed to update an existing registry entry. 
>>>     may be closed down. The authors of the RFC may have moved on. 
>>>    etc
>>>
>>> So please consider adding it back or explain why this 
>>> information is not needed for a registry where external 
>>> organizations can add value (without publishing an RFC).
>>>
>>> The text already says that "Specification Required" applies to 
>>> new entries.
>>>
>>> I am not aware of another registry where we would define 
>>> entry-specific rules.
>>>     
>>> Let me know if you still have issues with this. Maybe I 
>>> misunderstood your issue :)
>>
>> Yes, I still have an issue with this change. The document is now 
>> lacking information needed for IANA to complete registrations.
>>
>> When I originally asked about need for "Address", all I wanted 
>> was removal of "Address", not removal of the 2 sentences around it.
>> 
>>     Yes.
>> 
>>     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?

In addition, there would need to be some guidance on what information to provide. For example, if IETF WG X defines an entry, I don't think the change control can be given to WG X, because WG X may not exist in 10 years. So, I assume the change control would be given to IESG?

Regards,

Christer