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

2011-03-28 07:41:35
On 3/28/11 2:14 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

Agreed, thanks to Paul for the proposed text.

On 2/15/11 9:02 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get
at.

Agreed, I will add this as an RFC Editor's note.

On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

On 2/15/11 7:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

I propose some text for the draft near the bottom of this
email.... For the user ports the document should have some text
along the lines of:

There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a
second port for a secure version of protocol therefor the export
reviewer should not reject a request for a second port to run a
secure variant of the protocol over.

That feels close, but too prescriptive. Also, the requests are
usually for a protocol with two ports, not a later request for a
second port. How about:

There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a
second port for a secure version of protocol. Therefore, an expert
reviewer should not reject a proposal for a protocol that uses a
second part to run a secure variant for the sole reason that it
is using two ports.

After discussing this new text with IESG and some participants of the
TSVWG, it became clear that while there is clear agreement for adding
the first sentence quoted above ("There is no IETF consensus..."), there
is no clear cut consensus for adding the second sentence ("Therefore, an
expert reviewer should not reject a proposal").

After even further discussions with proponents of this text, with
editors, IANA, etc., the proposal is to strike the second sentence, i.e.
only the following sentence is going to be added to the document:

 There is no IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second
port for an insecure version of protocol.

The IESG is already alerted when there are problems with IANA
registrations, so the requirement being removed is not needed.

If people have problems with this change, please send your objections by
4pm Prague time on Wednesday, March 30th, as I would like to approve the
document before my IESG term ends.

As someone who was involved in formulating the two-sentence text and who
raised concerns about removing the second sentence within the IESG, I'd
like to publicly affirm that I find this resolution acceptable.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>