IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 21 May 2013 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7B821F96D6; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOBrrzj4e08s; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3A821F9500; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=790; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369147857; x=1370357457; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=2n9lovN1A306ExwrBoORhkj4Yj1upVAZ5i0Fji6oqR4=; b=hNyJb66F6w9joIMYzIH9UvW54r6GY4mYxGvLOzKXMgw531V/JScSgXAz SW0Yri7l49F9bOCqTHHWX2t09tfI8f7QLbekcCiuFrP6+ER3Z0pHBfzlW gILRJ2pAVlFdeEvN6YmnO1DGbavtrgcokhKOCUcBytfUox/aFt9Rz7q4q M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAHOJm1GtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgwjBf4EJFnSCIwEBAQMBeQULAgEIIiQyJQIEDgUIEYduBrtbjmcCMQeCc2EDiGegEYMPgiY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,714,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="213134923"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 May 2013 14:50:44 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4LEoiCN003811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:44 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.36]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:50:44 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org WG" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
Thread-Index: AQHOVjKRuwJMNkuCLEGo8RXp25VaDA==
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:30 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113508AF8@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <201304251725.r3PHPqeV3429515@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6DC561@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <51798419.7070103@nostrum.com> <517A23B4.3060801@ericsson.com> <201304261820.r3QIKq913501941@shell01.TheWorld.com> <51909E36.9050407@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <51909E36.9050407@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <BB3A36B0DC15F849BF4CF55BC4911A40@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:51:15 -0000

On May 13, 2013, at 2:03 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> I also think you should check with IANA if one can touch a closed
> registry at all, or if we are restricted to clarifying notes for the
> registry.

If we have consensus for the change and IESG approval, I think we can do whatever we want to the IANA registries. If we want a totally different format for the registry, we can do that - we just need a draft that updates the previous RFC that defined the registries. 

However, I agree with Keith the registry is for code point allocation, not explaining life to implementors. If we need an information RFC to summarize and explain all the info to implementors, that would be easy to publish if someone wrote it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email