Hi,
Since this document is going to be standards-track, I think the contact
for the dtls-id registration should be the IESG instead of the author.
Personally I don¹t have a strong preference, but there are a number of
similar RFCs where the author is listed. A 30 second search gives me RFC
4853, RFC 4574Š
In another RFC (sorry, I closed the browser tab and forgot the number) the
WG chair mail address was listed.
So, it seems like there is no strict rule.
Regards,
Christer
On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:18 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
- 'Using the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism for DTLS'
<draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-22.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2017-04-06. Exceptionally,
comments may
be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document defines the SDP offer/answer procedures for negotiating
and establishing a DTLS association. The document also defines the
criteria for when a new DTLS association must be established. The
document updates RFC 5763 and RFC 7345, by replacing common SDP
offer/answer procedures with a reference to this specification.
This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'dtls-id'.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.