[tram] IANA considerations in draft-ietf-tram-stunbis

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 25 October 2019 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E19C12086F for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 04:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Xyc810o15hXl for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 04:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84D0612007C for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 04:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039987C381F; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:32:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lt8q5fmP61Ee; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:32:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.3.208] (unknown [188.113.75.166]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02FF27C326B; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:32:41 +0200 (CEST)
To: tram@ietf.org
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: iana@iana.org
Message-ID: <0446c096-7efd-872e-5f9b-7ad42f249b6c@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:32:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
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/tram/KE1-R2uq4PTyUgGcs7T99ZN0_qY>
Subject: [tram] IANA considerations in draft-ietf-tram-stunbis
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:32:48 -0000

This is defintely not what you want to hear when a document is in AUTH48....

I wanted to write a request for a new STUN attribute today, and found 
that the registry pointed to the -stunbis draft for IANA instruction.


On reading, I found that the instructions (such as they were; they 
weren't much) had been left behind in RFC 5389, which this draft was 
supposed to obsolete. Even the statement that the C000-FFFF range was 
"designatd expert" was missing.


What should we do about this?


Harald