Subject: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6335 (4999)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:40:22 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6335,
"Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6335&eid=4999

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------

Corrected Text
--------------

Notes
-----
HOLD FOR UPDATE

Many port number assignments are to individuals, but the document does not
contemplate how they should be handled when the assignee is dead or
otherwise can't be contacted. 

The most obvious procedure to follow is a transfer (8.5), but that requires 
de-assignment (8.2), and that doesn't cover the case above.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6335 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry
Publication Date    : August 2011
Author(s)           : M. Cotton, L. Eggert, J. Touch, M. Westerlund, S. Cheshire
Category            : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
Source              : Transport Area Working Group
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:08:40 -0700

Hi, all,

While I agree that we didn't explicitly cover this case - or the case
where a company serves as the assignee and has gone out of business -
the doc IMO already covers what would happen here. IANA steps in to
represent the past owner and ensure proper transition, if appropriate,
as per rervocation in Sec 8.4.

I doubt we need to hold this for update, for that reason. I.e., at best,
we would only confirm that the assignee reverts to IANA in such cases,
as shepherd.

Joe