Skip to main content

H.248/MEGACO Registration Procedures
draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Alexey Melnikov
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2009-06-25
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-06-25
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-06-25
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-06-24
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-06-23
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-06-16
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-06-16
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-06-12
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-12
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-06-12
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-06-12
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-06-12
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2009-05-27
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
2009-05-27
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov
2009-05-26
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-05-26
04 (System) New version available: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-04.txt
2009-05-22
04 Cullen Jennings State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-22
04 Cullen Jennings Note field has been cleared by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-21
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-05-21
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2009-05-21
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-05-21
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-05-21
04 Tim Polk [Ballot comment]
I support Alexey's Discuss.
2009-05-21
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-05-21
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
I think IANA registration templates for "Error Code Registration" (section 6.2) and "ServiceChange Reason Registration" (section 6.3) should also include the owner/contact information.
2009-05-21
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
5.3. Error Code Registration Procedure

[...]

  6) An error number shall not be redefined nor modified except by the
  organization or …
[Ballot discuss]
5.3. Error Code Registration Procedure

[...]

  6) An error number shall not be redefined nor modified except by the
  organization or individual that originally defined it, or their
  successors or assigns.

I would like to better understand what is meant by "redifinition or modification" of an error number?
If this means that the error condition associated with an error is redefined, then surely this should result in another Expert review (to make sure that redifinition is a clarification, as opposed to assignment of a totally different meaning). If redefinition means changing of the error number, then again, this would require another Expert review.
2009-05-21
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-05-21
04 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
> 1. Binary ID (or serial number)

Do people really register these using the binary representation?
Perhaps you mean numeric, not binary. On …
[Ballot comment]
> 1. Binary ID (or serial number)

Do people really register these using the binary representation?
Perhaps you mean numeric, not binary. On the wire the number may
be binary, but the IANA registry, for instance, uses hexadecimal
representation. (http://www.iana.org/assignments/megaco-h248)
2009-05-21
04 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
This document is fine overall, but there were two parts that I was
unable to understand. Am I missing something obvious, or is …
[Ballot discuss]
This document is fine overall, but there were two parts that I was
unable to understand. Am I missing something obvious, or is there
a mistake in the document:

>  3) The public package requester shall provide a reference to a
>  document that describes the package, which should be public:
>
>  a) The document shall specify the version of the package that it
>  describes.
>
>  b) If the document is public, it should be located on a public web
>  server and should have a stable URL. The site should provide a
>  mechanism to provide comments and appropriate responses should be
>  returned.
>
>  c) If the document is not public, it must be made available for
>  review by the IESG appointed Expert (without requiring an NDA) at the
>  time of the application.

I am not sure I understand how a "public package requester" can ask
for a value to a non-public specification, even if the expert reviewer
will be able to see it.

> Note: The documenting text does not have to be publicly available at
> the time of the registration request, however the text shall be
> provided and available for review by the IESG appointed Expert at the
> time of application.

I do not understand the difference between "at the time of the
registration request" and "at the time of application".

Also, how about s/documenting text/document/?
2009-05-21
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-05-20
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-05-20
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2009-05-20
04 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-05-20
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-05-19
04 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
From the Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann ...

  Section 4:

  OLD:
    As at this date
  NEW:
    …
[Ballot comment]
From the Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann ...

  Section 4:

  OLD:
    As at this date
  NEW:
    As of this date


  OLD:
    As H.248 is a master slave protocol if the malicious
  NEW:
    As H.248 is a master slave protocol, if the malicious


  OLD:
    there would be no affect
  NEW:
    there would be no effect


  Section 6.2:

  OLD:
    On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
    thr received information (i.e. the Error Code text (Specification
    required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).
  NEW:
    On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
    the received information (i.e. the Error Code text and required
    specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).


  Section 6.3:

  OLD:
    On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
    the received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text
    (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
    section 4.4).
  NEW:
    On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
    the received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text
    and required specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
    section 4.4).
2009-05-19
04 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
I have a question.  The answer to the question will determine whether
  a change to the document is needed.  Section 5.2 (Package …
[Ballot discuss]
I have a question.  The answer to the question will determine whether
  a change to the document is needed.  Section 5.2 (Package Registration
  Procedure) allows for two kinds of registrations: public packages and
  private packages.  Section 5.2 paragraph (3)(c) allows a non-public
  documentation to be used by the IESG-appointed IANA Expert (without
  requiring an NDA).  I have no objection if the intent is to allow the
  review to take place before the documentation is made public.  Is this
  the intent?  Can a public package registration have permanently
  non-public documentation?  The Note in Section 5.2 could provide more
  clarity on this topic.
2009-05-19
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-05-19
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-05-19
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-05-02
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2009-05-02
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2009-04-30
04 Cullen Jennings Telechat date was changed to 2009-05-21 from 2009-05-07 by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-24
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings
2009-04-24
04 Cullen Jennings Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-24
04 Cullen Jennings Created "Approve" ballot
2009-04-24
04 Cullen Jennings State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-24
04 Cullen Jennings Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-05-07 by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-24
04 Cullen Jennings
[Note]: 'IESG - when reviewing this, please consider the topic of if it is alright to register a "public" package when the specification is not …
[Note]: 'IESG - when reviewing this, please consider the topic of if it is alright to register a "public" package when the specification is not publicly available. This came up as an IETF LC comment.' added by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-07
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-04-07
03 (System) New version available: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-03.txt
2009-02-24
04 Amanda Baber
IANA questions/comments:

Upon approval of this document, we understand that the registration procedures for all registries at  should be listed as "Expert Review."

Question 1: …
IANA questions/comments:

Upon approval of this document, we understand that the registration procedures for all registries at  should be listed as "Expert Review."

Question 1: Section 5.1 says, "Updates to packages will be listed in increasing order of version number." We're not sure what this means. Does this change the order in which we list packages?

Question 2: Can you confirm that this document removes IETF Consensus as a
possible for registration procedure, and that only Expert Review will be used?
2009-02-23
04 Cullen Jennings State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings
2009-02-23
04 Cullen Jennings [Note]: 'Waiting for revised id for gen art review - see email of Feb 23' added by Cullen Jennings
2009-02-23
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-02-06
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows.
2009-02-01
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2009-02-01
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2009-01-26
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-01-26
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-01-24
04 Cullen Jennings Last Call was requested by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
04 Cullen Jennings State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-01-24
04 (System) Last call text was added
2009-01-24
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-01-24
04 Cullen Jennings State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
04 Cullen Jennings Note field has been cleared by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
04 Cullen Jennings State Changes to AD is watching from AD is watching::AD Followup by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
04 Cullen Jennings [Note]: 'Waiting for OK  to start pub request.' added by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
04 Cullen Jennings [Note]: 'Waiting for OK  to start pub request.

' added by Cullen Jennings
2008-07-31
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-07-31
02 (System) New version available: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02.txt
2008-06-05
04 Cullen Jennings Status date has been changed to 2008-07-01 from
2008-04-09
04 Cullen Jennings Area acronymn has been changed to rai from gen
2008-04-09
04 Cullen Jennings State Changes to AD is watching::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings
2008-04-09
04 Cullen Jennings State Change Notice email list have been change to Christian.Groves@nteczone.com, linyangbo@huawei.com, draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg@tools.ietf.org, fluffy@cisco.com from Christian.Groves@nteczone.com, linyangbo@huawei.com, draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg@tools.ietf.org
2008-04-08
04 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-03-13
01 (System) New version available: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-01.txt
2007-10-02
00 (System) New version available: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-00.txt