Paul (et al.),
See below.
Note that IANA can't just make its own decisions either and ignore IETF
process *AND* expert review.
I wasn't trying to imply that, but it appears to have been inferred from
my claim that "neither document binds IANA to the advice of a reviewer".
IANA is bound by the "OR" of basic IETF process and Expert Review. The
former can override the latter (or vice versa), but there is an appeal
process - through the IETF - as well.
If you have issue with these processes, then RFC 2434 and RFC 2780 are
your targets, not this doc.
Joe
On 1/30/2011 7:12 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 1/29/11 9:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
...
As per my other note:
RFC2780 specifies Expert Review as *one* of the viable means by which
IANA can decide on transport protocol port assignments. The term "Expert
Review" is defined in RFC 2434.
Neither document binds IANA to use the advice of a reviewer.
Further, there is no single reviewer - we have a team, consulting each
other on occasion, and all decisions are seen by multiple reviewers.
However, none of that is worth codifying. If IANA or the IESG doesn't
like how we serve them, they can replace us - at any time, for any
reason, and there is an appeals process for decisions of the expert team:
Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the
normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-
PROCESS].
Now that this has been made clear to me, I am *much* more worried about
the wording in the current draft. The above emphatic statements means
that IANA can reject a request for an IETF-approved protocol that needs
two ports without recourse.
Repeating myself:
a) this document is NOT proscribing IANA processes for expert review of
port requests
b) RFC 2790 describes MANY ways IANA decides how to allocate ports:
Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
Action.
Note the word *OR* above. Expert review doesn't override IETF process here.
The document should be amended to say that protocols with IETF
consensus should get as many ports as it needs, regardless of what
IANA or the expert reviewer thinks.
The above section already allows for that.
This makes it the responsibility
of the IETF consensus process to follow the guidelines in this
document.
This document says, quite clearly, at the front of Section 7.2:
This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA handles
the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry and
attempts to conserve the port number space. This description is
intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port
numbers. IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling
assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions
may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet.
It never says that this is a process that the IESG or IETF is required
to follow. The language of the section has wiggle words throughout, and
does not use RFC 2119 language. Thus nobody anywhere is bound by it.
c) RFC 2434 notes how expert reviewers are selected:
Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the
IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a
new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally
appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director
will appoint replacements if necessary.
d) there is already a process to appeal decisions that are based on
Expert Review:
Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the
normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-
PROCESS]. Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG,
they may be removed by the IESG.
------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf