It seems like the text in version 10 are changes that would need a LC to decide
if they had consensus.
Consider the change to add the text
Because the port number space is finite (and
therefore conservation is an important goal) the alternative of using
service names instead of port numbers is RECOMMENDED whenever
possible.
I think at least one member of the expert review teams believes that it is
possible to use SRV for most protocols so does this mean that ports will not be
assigned for most protocols? Take SIP or XMPP for example, they both use SRV -
would they get a port? If we were doing a new protocol like HTTP that did not
define a SRV record but could be designed to have one, would the expert reviews
approve a port or not? I think all these topics need significant discussion
before the a LC of text like this. Anyone want to elaborate on how "whenever
possible" would be decided?
I find the the following text a bit outrageous.
Applicants
should be aware that IANA decisions are not required to be bound to
these principles. These principles and general advice to users on
port use are expected to change over time and are therefore
documented separately, please see [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-use].
The basic complaints about this draft can mostly be summarized as a view that
everything that the authors of this draft could not get agreement on in the WG,
they just made the draft silent on and Joe is asserting that the expert reviews
can do whatever they think was best regardless of any IETF consensus and then
people can appeal it. So this text would have this BCP assert that the place to
find out what was OK and not OK was in documented in an individual draft
written by Joe. This is not OK. Consider if I asked that instead, it pointed at
I-D.fluffy-port-use. I'm sure many people would think that was totally
unacceptable. I don't see how this is any more acceptable. It seems like an
inappropriate change to make without a new LC. I don't think that it is OK for
a BCP on how to register ports to point people at a spec without consensus
approval that says what is OK to register and what is not.
I am confused by
use of the "Expert Review" helps advise IANA informally in
cases where "IETF Review" or "IESG Review" is used, as with most IETF
protocols.
I read this to mean that IANA would also ask for expert review on allocations
made in IESG reviewed drafts? This seemed to be the opposite of what was
discussed on list.
The draft removed the "and so strives to avoid separate assignments for
non-secure variants" out of
"IANA strives to encourage the deployment of secure protocols, and so strives
to avoid separate assignments for non-secure variants"
I suspect this was done to try and address my main complaint but I don't see
how it helps.
On Feb 11, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures
for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Registry
Author(s) : M. Cotton, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10.txt
Pages : 32
Date : 2011-02-11
This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling assignment and other
requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port
Number Registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles
behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term
sustainability of the registry.
This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting the previous
UDP and TCP port assignment procedures defined in Sections 8 and 9.1
of the IANA allocation guidelines [RFC2780], and it updates the IANA
Service Name and Port assignment procedures for UDP-Lite [RFC3828],
DCCP [RFC4340] [RFC5595] and SCTP [RFC4960]. It also updates the DNS
SRV specification [RFC2782] to clarify what a service name is and how
it is registered.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
<Mail Attachment>_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf