IETF MOQ WG: [IANA #1456083] Early review: draft-ietf-moq-transport-19 (IETF 126)

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: [IANA #1456083] Early review: draft-ietf-moq-transport-19 (IETF 126)
• Message subject: [Moq] [IANA #1456083] Early review: draft-ietf-moq-transport-19 (IETF 126)
• Author: Amanda Baber via RT
• Published: 2026-07-16T10:56:10.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Amanda Baber via RT posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on July 16, 2026. Dear Authors (cc: moq), Before the IETF meeting, we check working group agendas for documents with IANA-related issues. We have notes ab…

Why It Matters

This message came from the public MOQ working group archive and captures active discussion, meeting coordination, or implementation feedback around Media over QUIC.

Message Excerpt

Dear Authors (cc: moq), Before the IETF meeting, we check working group agendas for documents with IANA-related issues. We have notes about this document: I see the IANA Considerations work is still in progress, but I should point out the following:

Plain-Text Body

Dear Authors (cc: moq),

Before the IETF meeting, we check working group agendas for documents with IANA-related issues. We have notes about this document:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-moq-transport-19

I see the IANA Considerations work is still in progress, but I should point out the following:

1. Unless these new registries belong in an existing registry group, please state that you’re creating one and provide a name for it. Possibilities might be “Media over Quic Transport (MOQT)" or "Media over Quic (MOQ)."

2. For any Expert Review or Specification Required registries, the IANA Considerations section should provide guidance for the designated experts (see RFC 8126, Sections 4.5 and 5.3).

3. To help people who might need to search for the registry, consider differentiating the registry names from similarly-named registries for other protocols by including the name of the protocol at the beginning of each registry name. Some registries already do this (e.g., MOQT Auth Token Type).

4. Please be sure to state upper and lower numeric bounds for any registries that have them (e.g., 0 and 255, 0 and 65535, etc.). If there are none, please state this. Should the Properties registry indicate an upper bound?

5. draft-ietf-moq-loc, draft-ietf-moq-secure-objects-01, draft-ietf-moq-msf-01 are allocating values from this document’s registries, but the names and/or fields don’t match the document, and if the first two mean to request values from “Properties,” two of the values they’re requesting appear to have been allocated for another purpose (or at least by another name) by this document. draft-ietf-ianabis-early-registries (currently in WGLC) would establish an equivalent to the early allocation process for registry creation, but the process won’t be available until/unless the IESG approves it for publication.

If you have any questions, just let us know. If you'd like to talk in person, you can find us at the IANA table from Monday through Thursday. You can also request another review at any time by contacting us at iana@iana.org.

For more information about IANA Considerations section requirements, please see

https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration

Best regards,

Amanda Baber IANA