<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/authoring/rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<?rfc comments="yes" ?>
<?rfc inline="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="no" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="no"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>

<rfc
  category="bcp"
  submissionType="IETF"
  ipr="trust200902"
  docName="draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="IANA Contact for IETF Registrations">
    Specifying the IANA Contact for Registrations in IETF Documents
    </title>

    <author initials='B.' surname="Leiba" fullname='Barry Leiba'>
      <organization>FutureWei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <phone>+1 914 433 2749</phone>
        <email>barryleiba@computer.org</email>
        <uri>http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/</uri>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date/>

    <area>General</area>
    <workgroup></workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>
        IETF documents have been inconsistent in what they specify as the registrant
        (or contact, or change controller) in IANA registrations they make.
        This document provides a consistent specification ("IETF") to be used,
        and allows for exceptions with IESG approval.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>
        IETF documents have been inconsistent in what they specify as the registrant
        (or contact, or change controller) in IANA registrations they make.
        Sometimes "IETF" is used, sometimes "IESG"; sometimes a working group is named,
        and sometimes individuals (usually the document authors) are used.
        There are even some that specify the IETF Chair.
      </t>
      <t>
        So as to provide some consistency, this document gives a preferred specification,
        while allowing exceptions when there are good reasons for making them.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="specification" title="Specifying Registrant Information">
      <t>
        When a document coming from an IETF working group makes an IANA request that
        specifies registrant information (including such things as "contact", "owner",
        "change controller", and similar fields), "IETF" is to be used, as the registration
        is coming from the IETF as a whole via IETF consensus on the document.
        If contact information is specified, the working group mailing list would
        normally be used.  If there is a relevant review list or other IETF mailing list
        that covers the technology, that can be used instead.
      </t>
      <t>
        For example:
        <list style="none">
        <t>
          Registrant contact: IETF &lt;examplewg@ietf.org&gt;
        </t>
        <t>
          Change controller: IETF &lt;examplewg@ietf.org&gt;
        </t>
        </list>
      </t>
      <t>
        When a document coming from an individual submitter makes an IANA request that
        specifies registrant information, "IETF" is to be used, as these registrations
        also come from the IETF as a whole via IETF last call consensus.
        If contact information is specified and there are relevant mailing lists
        as outlined above, one of those lists would normally be used, with the assent
        of the working group chairs or list owners.
        If there is no relevant working group, a relevant directorate or area-wide
        mailing list is the next choice, with the assent of the Area Directors.
        In cases where neither of those options applies, the document authors or
        the IESG itself can be used as contact information.
      </t>
      <t>
        In any case, contact information will not be published in the RFC.
        IANA will record the contact information and the RFC Editor will remove the
        email addresses during final editing.  This allows IANA to update the recorded
        contact information when email addresses change or disappear, and avoids putting
        mutable email addresses into immutable RFCs.
      </t>
      <t>
        As there could be good reasons to vary from these policies in some situations,
        the IESG always has the authority to approve sensible exceptions.
        Working group chairs or document authors should discuss proposed exceptions
        with the responsible Area Director when such situations arise, and such
        exceptions should be called out in the document shepherd writeup.
      </t>
      <t>
        See BCP 26 <xref target="RFC8126"/> for additional information about IANA registratons.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>
        IANA is asked to check compliance with this and to ask the responsible AD in cases
        where this practice is not followed.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>
        This document is purely procedural, and there are no related security considerations.
      </t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126" ?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
