ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

2011-01-31 10:41:49
Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 17:13:

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. 

I am not certain I understand what your issue is here. Is it that they
can come to different conclusions, and that IETF can decided to override
the expert review team? I think that is the logical conclusion, as the
IETF's decision will have gone through a consensus process. One which
the expert can provide their view into this.


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. 


My reading of the WG last call consensus is that nobody is disagreeing
with the goal of trying minimize the port consumption. My interpretation
is that we do need to state that goal in the document. And the only way
of achieving this is to try to minimize the consumption by each protocol
that requires a registration. That includes trying to get all
multiplexing into that single socket, or at least use it for agreeing on
dynamic range port for this protocol.


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. 

It is a high level goal to minimize the port space consumption. I do
believe there is strong consensus for this. And I believe that the only
way of ensuring that this goal is meet is to take a pretty hard stance
against frivolous use of ports.

Thus, I still think there is clear grounds for rejecting requests for
multiple ports based on not sufficiently motivating why it is impossible
to not use one port. I do agree that these guidelines should be
documented, and that is the plans as far as I know.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: 
magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>