On 1/31/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request for an
IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports without recourse.
I don't follow. Assignments through IETF-stream documents do not go
through expert review.
Then this should be made *much* clearer in the document. In fact, the
document says:
A key element of the procedural streamlining specified in this
document is to establish identical assignment procedures for all IETF
transport protocols.
I assumed that "all" meant "all", not "all except those through
IETF-stream documents"; others might have read it the same way I did.
Further, the wording throughout the template description in 8.1 makes it
sound like that the restrictions in this document apply to everything
that needs a template, which clearly includes IETF-stream documents.
And I've never witnessed IANA rejecting requests coming through the
IETF.
This document is about new restrictions for the future, not what has
happened in the past.
But even if they did, there is an appeals procedure.
That is slim comfort to a WG that has designed a protocol that has good
design reasons for needing two ports and, at the last minute is told
that they either have to re-design from scratch or go through an appeals
process to justify their design to IANA. It's fine that they have to
justify it to the IESG (well, fine to me; other greybeards seem to not
like that so much these days), but there should be no way that IANA can
say "you cannot get ports assigned because this new RFC says that you
designed your protocol wrong". If what you say above about "Assignments
through IETF-stream documents do not go through expert review." is true,
it should be plainly stated in the introduction to the document.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf