Subject: Contact person for Early Allocation?

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:00:38 -0400

Hi all,

So, I'm asking for early allocation of a port under the RFC7120 process.

The chairs and AD judge that there is consensus, and then the chairs
request IANA
to make an early allocation.

Fine. No worries.

RFC6335 (allocating a port) needs an Assignee and a Contact:
   o  Assignee: Name and email address of the party to whom the
      assignment is made.  This is REQUIRED.  The Assignee is the
      organization, company or individual person responsible for the
      initial assignment...

   o  Contact: Name and email address of the Contact person for the
      assignment.  This is REQUIRED.  The Contact person is the
      responsible person for the Internet community to send questions
      to.  This person is also authorized to submit changes on behalf of
      the Assignee; in cases of conflict between the Assignee and the
      Contact, the Assignee decisions take precedence.  Additional
      address information MAY be provided...

So, I *think* that the correct thing here is for the chair who is
requesting this to be listed as the Assignee and the document author
to be the Contact?
Or should the WG be the Assignee? Or the IETF?

I could not find clear direction here...

Thoughts?

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:13:37 +0100

> requesting this to be listed as the Assignee and the document author

That'd be fine. As would most anything. You then get a year
to fix it whenever you make the early allocation permanent.

S.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:07:56 -0400

Warren,

> Or should the WG be the Assignee? Or the IETF?

My recommendation is to use the <wg>-chairs alias for the following reasons:
- It is hopefully a long-lived address.
- Those addresses are heavily harvested and will receive a bunch of spam.
  :-(
- The entry is unlikely to be orphaned quite as much.

See for example [BFD_Chairs] in the service-names-port-numbers registry.

The port # assignments especially are full of nonsense or stale addresses.
I once looked into getting a former boss off of his assignment from 10+
years ago, and since his email was no longer active there it seemed to be
more pain than it was worth.

-- Jeff

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:42:45 -0400

> See for example [BFD_Chairs] in the service-names-port-numbers registry.

Huh, thanks, that sounds clean. I think I'll do that...

W

---

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:46:17 +0000

Hello,

If ultimately the reference will be an RFC, you can use IETF Chair/IESG.
There are many examples of this currently in registries.

Best regards,

Michelle

****

Michelle Cotton 
Protocol Parameters Engagement Manager
ICANN

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:50:37 -0400

> There are many examples of this currently in registries.

I thought that that was more appropriate for *after* the document was
approved / after the Early Allocation. I think we have already sent in
the request....

W

---

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:52:36 +0000

As discussed in earlier threads, we can change it when the document is
approved.

Thanks,

Michelle