As a representative for the IETF. It’s really the IETF, with the IESG giving formal approval.
Barry On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 9:43 AM Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 17, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2022-08-17, at 17:04, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Carsten: > >> > >> I want this document to be recognized a Jim's work. Therefore, I have > asked the RFC Editor to drop my name from the author's list. Michael is > asking me to leave it. > > > > Russ, > > > > thanks for the clarification; I should have had a look at the actual > document. > > > > Section 16.2 of RFC 8152 does not include a “change controller” column, > which would create the natural place to include a workable email address in > Section 5.2. Similar for Section 9.2 of RFC 8949 (a point of contact is > only required for FCFS registrations). > > (See Sections 2.3 and 4.5 of RFC 8126, and some not yet fully documented > procedures about then actually creating the entries from RFCs and possibly > updating it when email addresses become invalid.) > > > > So maybe we should simply provide the point of contact info in Section > 5.1, even if it is not required by RFC 8949. I’d say [email protected], with > fallback to some SEC area list I can’t find at the moment. Except that > info is removed by the RFC editor. > > > > Barry: Any ideas how to do this right? > > > > Grüße, Carsten > > > Carsten: > > Wouldn't the IESG be the change controller for an Internet Standard. > > Russ
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
