Subject: [art] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-15: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:50:44 -0800

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Should the Media-Type registration go to the authors of the draft, as
specified, or instead to the appsawg & eventually defaulting to the IESG?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:40:54 -0500

> specified, or instead to the appsawg & eventually defaulting to the IESG?

We're inconsistent about whether we do or don't like having individual
contributors as contact points for these things.  I'm one of those who
don't like it, preferring a (relatively speaking) stable address over
an individual who may change jobs (and thus change email addresses),
leave IETF work, retire, die, whatever.

For my part, I'd prefer to stop using individuals as contact points
for registrations that come from working groups or areas, and always
use a working-group or area mailing list.

Barry

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:43:46 -0600

> use a working-group or area mailing list.

I agree with Barry in general, though I don't have a strong opinion one 
way or another for this particular document.

Alexey, thoughts?

Ben.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:47:59 -0600

On 29 Nov 2016, at 17:43, Ben Campbell wrote:

> I agree with Barry in general, though I don't have a strong opinion 
> one way or another for this particular document.

Oops, I meant to go on to say that I prefer not to use mailing lists 
that don't already have some reason to live mostly forever--At least 
without making it clear that the contact may change over time.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:19:56 +0000

Hi Ben/Barry,

> way or another for this particular document.

Are you talking about the following in 3.1:

   Author:             See the Authors' Addresses section of [RFCXXXX]

   Change controller:  IETF

I am happy to change "Author" to [email-masked] or whatever you think is
more appropriate.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:26:31 -0800

> without making it clear that the contact may change over time.
speaking as the one-time culler of mailing lists. we used to have quite
a few that  had zero traffic for years, I don't thing there's much more
assurance that an official mailing list is manned then an email address.

joel
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>