Hi, Tom,
Thanks - yes, I can see where reordering the sentences in that paragraph
could make the issue much clearer. I'll do that in the pending update ...
Joe
On 2/2/2011 3:22 AM, t.petch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Touch"<touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
To: "Paul Hoffman"<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>
"IETF discussion list"<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;<tsvwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "IESG
IESG"
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:39 PM
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joe
I think that it is a point of confusion because the text is confused
(well, it confuses me:-(.
If you know in advance that there are two independent paths that
can be taken, then you can read that meaning into it.
If you do not know that, then having read
"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"
then it is obvious that Expert Review always happens, even when a later
sentence talks about 'may also be assigned'.
To make the two paths clear, the text should be reordered eg
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.
For most IETF protocols, ports in the User Ports range will be assigned under
the "IETF
Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226] and no further
documentation is required.
Where these procedures do not apply, then the requester must
input the documentation 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.
Tom Petch
o Ports in the System Ports range (0-1023) are also available for
assignment through IANA. Because the System Ports range is both
the smallest and the most densely allocated, the requirements for
new assignments are more strict than those for the User Ports
range, and will only be granted under the "IETF Review" or "IESG
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Approval" procedures [RFC5226]. A request for a System Port
^^^^^^^^^
number MUST document *both* why using a port number from the
Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable *and* why using a port number
from the User Ports range is unsuitable for that application.
3) section 7 has NOTHING TO DO with the procedures this document
updates. That section has plenty of words to avoid any such impression.
And no, we don't need to define "strives", IMO - since NOTHING IN THAT
SECTION IS BINDING.
Again, since this is a persistent cause of confusion, I quote from that
section:
This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA handles
the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry and
attempts to conserve the port number space. This description is
intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port
numbers. IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
**************
may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
***********
If you need more explicit words, the term "non-binding" can be added.
-------
There's a doc I drafted in TSVWG which is a more appropriate venue to
discuss this issue (draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use0. I encourage those
interested in these issues to continue discussion on that list, not on
this general list.
For this document, if this section is causing confusion, it should be
removed, since it is already included in this other doc and can be
vetted there.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf