In fact if you look up the relevant IANA page [1], it refers to Sec. 17 of RFC
8447, which in turn lists the email address that Rich mentions at iana.org.
Arguably email addresses are not stable enough for inclusion in RFCs but in
this particular case, it is right there where it needs to be.
Thanks,
Yaron
[1]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#alpn-protocol-ids
From: "Salz, Rich" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 at 17:47
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email protected]>, Valery Smyslov <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leif Johansson <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Uta] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-05
Resent-From: <[email protected]>
Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 07:47:00 -0800 (PST)
➢ I’ve tried to register ALPN for SIP/2.0 for a long time now, but fail to get
responses and confusing ones.
I don’t recall seeing the request, and I am one of the designated experts for
the TLS registries. I wonder where you asked? mailto:[email protected]
is the place to write to. That address doesn’t seem to be written down
anywhere well-known.
➢ It seems unclear whether we need to write new RFCs for SIP in order to get a
registration, but that seems wrong to me.
The requirement is that somewhere there be a stable document. Since they don’t
expire, an internet-draft is sufficient. More likely, if the SIP documents
talk about TLS, and ideally mention ALPN, that’s enough, just mention whatever
docs in your email.
➢ It must be much easier to get this done.
Sorry for your frustration. Perhaps the current draft could add a sentence
giving the email address?
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
