Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6335 (4999)

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 19 April 2017 20:09 UTC

To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, michelle.cotton@icann.org, lars.eggert@nokia.com, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, cheshire@apple.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, ietf@kuehlewind.net, david.black@emc.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, wes@mti-systems.com
References: <20170419064022.20762B80E78@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mnot@mnot.net, tsvwg@ietf.org
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <a3565384-edc8-4d9b-3f17-84b2be7c2667@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:08:40 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170419064022.20762B80E78@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/GQ3AZxTkbEB13KqzxBSJ4QmCjYY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6335 (4999)
Precedence: list

Hi, all,

While I agree that we didn't explicitly cover this case - or the case
where a company serves as the assignee and has gone out of business -
the doc IMO already covers what would happen here. IANA steps in to
represent the past owner and ensure proper transition, if appropriate,
as per rervocation in Sec 8.4.

I doubt we need to hold this for update, for that reason. I.e., at best,
we would only confirm that the assignee reverts to IANA in such cases,
as shepherd.

Joe


On 4/18/2017 11:40 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6335,
> "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6335&eid=4999
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
>
> Section: GLOBAL
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> HOLD FOR UPDATE
>
> Many port number assignments are to individuals, but the document does not
> contemplate how they should be handled when the assignee is dead or
> otherwise can't be contacted. 
>
> The most obvious procedure to follow is a transfer (8.5), but that requires 
> de-assignment (8.2), and that doesn't cover the case above.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6335 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry
> Publication Date    : August 2011
> Author(s)           : M. Cotton, L. Eggert, J. Touch, M. Westerlund, S. Cheshire
> Category            : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
> Source              : Transport Area Working Group
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

[tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6335 (4999) RFC Errata System
Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6335 (… Joe Touch