[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 11:18:45

On 1/31/2011 7:06 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:

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 

   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.

RFC2434 already gives IANA these options.

Perhaps - at best - we should include a ref to that.

However, this document is not focused at changing what RFC2434 says, and the above statement, IMO, does.

That's another can of worms, and should be reserved for a different document.


Ietf mailing list

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