Hi, >Since this document is going to be standards-track, I think the contact >for the dtls-id registration should be the IESG instead of the author. Personally I don¹t have a strong preference, but there are a number of similar RFCs where the author is listed. A 30 second search gives me RFC 4853, RFC 4574Š In another RFC (sorry, I closed the browser tab and forgot the number) the WG chair mail address was listed. So, it seems like there is no strict rule. Regards, Christer >> On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:18 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session >> Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document: >> - 'Using the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism for DTLS' >> <draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-22.txt> as Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-04-06. Exceptionally, comments may >>be >> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> Abstract >> >> >> This document defines the SDP offer/answer procedures for negotiating >> and establishing a DTLS association. The document also defines the >> criteria for when a new DTLS association must be established. The >> document updates RFC 5763 and RFC 7345, by replacing common SDP >> offer/answer procedures with a reference to this specification. >> >> This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'dtls-id'. >> >> >> >> >> The file can be obtained via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp/ballot/ >> >> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> >> >> >> >