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

2011-02-01 12:00:55
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
useful:

1) the current doc already explicitly states the procedures for assignment
in each range of ports (see Sec 8.1.1).

2) Sec 8.1.1 *already* states that IESG approval through IETF process is a
valid path for assignment, distinct from Expert Review. Since that appears
to be a point of confusion, I'll quote it directly:

  o  Ports in the User Ports range (1024-49151) are available for
     assignment through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers
     upon successful assignment.  Because assigning a port number for a
     specific application consumes a fraction of the shared resource
     that is the port number registry, IANA will require the requester
     to document the intended use of the port number.  This
     documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" procedure
     [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert review the
     request to determine whether to grant the assignment.  The
     submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number in
     the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given application.
     Ports in the User Ports range may also be assigned under the "IETF
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226], which is how most
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     assignments for IETF protocols are handled.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For the purposes of clarification, then, this document has no impact whatsoever
on ports assigned through the IESG process? I.e., if my WG submits a proposed
standard document to the IESG and it asks for two ports, I'm not going to get
pushback based on the claim that this document imposes a presumption that
that's wrong?

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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