On 1/31/11 8:13 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Hmm ... I don't agree that solves the issue.
Well lets say the request was coming from 3GPP for a protocol they
designed - why should IANA be able to tell them no but IETF yes.
Because IANA is responsible for maintaining the usefulness of the
registry. Part of that is "don't hand out ports unnecessarily", and part
of that is "hand out ports without hassle to those who are trusted to
ask for them wisely". If 3GPP can show it belongs in the latter
category, great. Until then, the only body that is there is "IETF
consensus" plus maybe "IESG pressure".
I think the policy issue here is fairly clear. We do not have
consensus that in all cases that one should not have a second port
for security (I'm basing this assertion on Magnus read of WG
consensus and my read of IETF LC consensus). Therefore that should
not be a ground for the expert reviewer (or IANA) to reject the
registration. The document needs to be updated to make that clear or
it does not reflect consensus. If the authors of the draft want to
propose text for conditions when it would be ok to reject a second
port for security purposes and see if they can get consensus for that
text, that seems perfectly reasonable.
I'm sure that some people believe the draft, by using the word
"strives", actually means that this is not a grounds for rejection
but given the push back from Lars and Joe, I believe that "strives"
means that the decision is up to Joe. Given things could be read
either ways, I think it's fair to ask for the draft to clarify this.
Ietf mailing list