On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 01:30:08AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > I think the draft is clear that it applies to registrations that come from > the IETF. It doesn’t say anything about others, and would not want to. Do > you have specific suggestions for text that would clarify that further? It was not clear to me. I'll post suggested changes tomorrow. > Some of the problems include a lot of contact information for individuals > who are no longer reachable and/or no longer have any connection to the > registrations they are contacts for, along with the idea that the IETF, not > an arbitrary individual, should be the change controller for items > registered by the IETF. In these cases there's an RFC, and the RFC has datatracker history, which means anyone who wants to know who to contact can find the WG (if any) and mailing list there. If there's no WG, well, presumably one would think to ask IANA or a directorate. Even WG mailing lists die. Once a WG has been concluded for many years, the mailing list for it may well no longer serve to contact anyone involved in the WG. What might be worth doing is asking IANA to list in all registrations the registrant's contact information, the WG's if there was one, and the applicable directorate either way. Nico --
