Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Transport-31: IANA Policy and change controller #4230

Closed
gloinul opened this issue Oct 16, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #4239
Closed

Transport-31: IANA Policy and change controller #4230

gloinul opened this issue Oct 16, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #4239
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call.

Comments

@gloinul
Copy link
Contributor

gloinul commented Oct 16, 2020

Section 22.1.1:

It is quite common that one may want to separate who has the change control over an registration entry vs who is the contact. Change control can often be assigned to an organization rather than an individual while a contact information may be an individual or a specific contact address for the organization. Contact information has a tendency to get stale, and in many case the contact if a person may no longer represent the organization that made the registration.

Thus, my suggestion would be to add a separation between contact and change controller. In fact just for the registration in the Transport doc it makes sense to make the change controller "IETF" and have the contact be "QUIC WG".

@gloinul
Copy link
Contributor Author

gloinul commented Oct 16, 2020

This also applies to permanent registrations in Section 22.1.4

@larseggert larseggert added -transport ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call. labels Oct 16, 2020
martinthomson added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2020
At @gloinul's suggestion this adds a "change controller" field to
registries and splits between a change controller (IETF) and contact
(QUIC WG).

Closes #4230.
@larseggert
Copy link
Member

@gloinul does the PR address your issue?

@gloinul
Copy link
Contributor Author

gloinul commented Oct 19, 2020

Change looks good and implements what I proposed.

@larseggert
Copy link
Member

larseggert commented Oct 19, 2020

Labeling as "editorial" based on #4239

@larseggert larseggert added the editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. label Oct 19, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants