Hi,
On 2011-1-31, at 16:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
The sentence you quote isn't related to the issue we're discussing. It is
intended to say "a goal is that the procedures to get ports and service names
are the same for UDP, TCP, DCCP and SCTP." (Maybe it would be clearer by
explicitly naming these protocols in the document.)
But I see the point you're raising. The document should somewhere say that
"Expert Review" is the procedure used for assignment requests made directly to
IANA, whereas for documents on the IETF Stream, "IETF Consensus" is sufficient
to make the assignment. In other words, no expert review doesn't really need to
happen for those, since IETF Review and IESG Approval are at least equivalent.
Did I get that right?
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.
Right. I think the change I outlined above would address this.
Thanks!
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf