The draft should be standard track to update RFC3219 standard. IMHO, while this draft is informational
it cannot update a standard RFC. I a not sure if this has been done in the past, but if it was done I disagree with such RFCs.
it cannot update a standard RFC. I a not sure if this has been done in the past, but if it was done I disagree with such RFCs.
I think that the IANA consideration section is part of the standard, and I don't consider it just information that may not affect the standard. I think updating it may affect any standard/technology.
Best Regards,
AB
On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 12:04 AM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Update to the TRIP IANA Registry Rules Regarding
Postal Addresses'
<draft-arkko-trip-registry-update-00.txt> as Informational RFC
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 2018-12-28. 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 memo updates the IANA registry rules for the Telephony Routing
over IP (TRIP) protocol, by no longer requiring that postal addresses
be included in contact information.
This memo updates RFC 3219.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-trip-registry-update/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-trip-registry-update/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
