idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits56578/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (April 9, 2020) is 765 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B. Leiba 3 Internet-Draft FutureWei Technologies 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice April 9, 2020 5 Expires: October 11, 2020 7 Specifying the IANA Contact for Registrations in IETF Documents 8 draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00 10 Abstract 12 IETF documents have been inconsistent in what they specify as the 13 registrant (or contact, or change controller) in IANA registrations 14 they make. This document provides a consistent specification 15 ("IETF") to be used, and allows for exceptions with IESG approval. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2020. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 1. Introduction 51 IETF documents have been inconsistent in what they specify as the 52 registrant (or contact, or change controller) in IANA registrations 53 they make. Sometimes "IETF" is used, sometimes "IESG"; sometimes a 54 working group is named, and sometimes individuals (usually the 55 document authors) are used. There are even some that specify the 56 IETF Chair. 58 So as to provide some consistency, this document gives a preferred 59 specification, while allowing exceptions when there are good reasons 60 for making them. 62 2. Specifying Registrant Information 64 When a document coming from an IETF working group makes an IANA 65 request that specifies registrant information (including such things 66 as "contact", "owner", "change controller", and similar fields), 67 "IETF" is to be used, as the registration is coming from the IETF as 68 a whole via IETF consensus on the document. If contact information 69 is specified, the working group mailing list would normally be used. 70 If there is a relevant review list or other IETF mailing list that 71 covers the technology, that can be used instead. 73 For example: 75 Registrant contact: IETF 77 Change controller: IETF 79 When a document coming from an individual submitter makes an IANA 80 request that specifies registrant information, "IETF" is to be used, 81 as these registrations also come from the IETF as a whole via IETF 82 last call consensus. If contact information is specified and there 83 are relevant mailing lists as outlined above, one of those lists 84 would normally be used, with the assent of the working group chairs 85 or list owners. If there is no relevant working group, a relevant 86 directorate or area-wide mailing list is the next choice, with the 87 assent of the Area Directors. In cases where neither of those 88 options applies, the document authors or the IESG itself can be used 89 as contact information. 91 In any case, contact information will not be published in the RFC. 92 IANA will record the contact information and the RFC Editor will 93 remove the email addresses during final editing. This allows IANA to 94 update the recorded contact information when email addresses change 95 or disappear, and avoids putting mutable email addresses into 96 immutable RFCs. 98 As there could be good reasons to vary from these policies in some 99 situations, the IESG always has the authority to approve sensible 100 exceptions. Working group chairs or document authors should discuss 101 proposed exceptions with the responsible Area Director when such 102 situations arise, and such exceptions should be called out in the 103 document shepherd writeup. 105 See BCP 26 [RFC8126] for additional information about IANA 106 registratons. 108 3. IANA Considerations 110 IANA is asked to check compliance with this and to ask the 111 responsible AD in cases where this practice is not followed. 113 4. Security Considerations 115 This document is purely procedural, and there are no related security 116 considerations. 118 5. Informative References 120 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 121 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 122 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 123 . 125 Author's Address 127 Barry Leiba 128 FutureWei Technologies 130 Phone: +1 914 433 2749 131 Email: barryleiba@computer.org 132 URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/