Subject: [tram] IANA considerations in draft-ietf-tram-stunbis

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:32:41 +0200

This is defintely not what you want to hear when a document is in AUTH48....

I wanted to write a request for a new STUN attribute today, and found 
that the registry pointed to the -stunbis draft for IANA instruction.

On reading, I found that the instructions (such as they were; they 
weren't much) had been left behind in RFC 5389, which this draft was 
supposed to obsolete. Even the statement that the C000-FFFF range was 
"designatd expert" was missing.

What should we do about this?

Harald

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:00:19 -0700

> What should we do about this?
A short document that copies them out of RFC 5389 but doesn't change them?

Ted

>
> Harald
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:51:50 +0000

Hi,

As the document is still in AUTH48 and have been for a long time, we could
actually address it by copy the registry definition parts into the stunbis. I
will flag the RFC-editor to hold to document while we figure it out. 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------