Re: [port-srv-reg] Inconsistent terminology regarding "Administrative Contact" and "Technical Contact"

Part of me feels that the defining language is something that should possibly go in RFC5226bis.
Let me discuss this issue with IESG folks and I'll get back to the group.

Thanks,

Michelle

On 9/14/10 2:49 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

Hi, Michelle,

The problem is that they're both contacts, and there's a problem staying
that the contact is authorized to make changes for the registrant if you
don't also say who wins when there's conflict (i.e., what happens when
they disagree).

IMO:

        registrant      name of the party controlling the registration

        tech contact    name of the party to whom tech questions are
                        referred, but who can't modify the record

In the DNS, FWIW, these are called:

        registrant              party to whom registration is granted

        billing contact         not applicable here

        administrative contact  other managing party

        technical contact       tech questions

The precedence, AFAICT, is as follows, for the DNS:

        registrant > admin > tech/billing

In our situation, we have only two, which correspondingly would be:

        registrant

        technical contact

Where registrant > tech if any conflict arises. AFAICT, the tech contact
also ought not be able to change the name of the service, but might be
able to ask for the corresponding other transport protocol assignments.

Joe

On 9/14/2010 2:35 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> This is why we suggested the following terminology:
>
> o Registrant: Name and email address of the Registrant. This is
> REQUIRED. The Registrant is the Organization or Company responsible for
> the initial registration. For registrations done through IETF-published
> RFCs, the Registrant will be the IESG.
>
> o Contact: Name and email address of the Contact person for the
> registration. This is REQUIRED. The Contact person is the responsible
> person for the Internet community to send questions to. This person
> would also be authorized to submit changes on behalf of the Registrant.
> Additional address information MAY be provided. For registrations done
> through IETF-published RFCs, the Contact will be the IESG.
>
> This also fits well with other registries where we will be applying the
> same concept.
> If there is a better word for "registrant" I'm open for suggestions.
>
> Michelle
>
>
> On 9/14/10 2:28 PM, "Stuart Cheshire" <cheshire@apple.com> wrote:
>
>     On 9 Sep, 2010, at 08:32, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>     >  FWIW, I'm a bit confused by the current terms. I think we all
>     >  understand the goal - a tech contact and an owner.
>
>     Except it's not an "owner", because we have, in previous versions of
>     the draft, taken pains to stress that no one except IANA "owns" a
>     port or service name:
>
>     It is important to note that ownership of registered port numbers
>     and
>     service names remains with IANA.
>
>     Can we get some agreement on the terminology and concepts here?
>
>     Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
>     * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
>     * www.stuartcheshire.org
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Port-srv-reg mailing list
>     Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>