Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-05]
"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 05 February 2010 12:14 UTC
Return-Path: <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B483A6D78; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:14:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ZbPvUg4gYrS; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE51D3A6D7A; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:14:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Trace: 290869756/mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$PIPEX-ACCEPTED/pipex-customers/62.188.100.186/None/cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 62.188.100.186
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-SMTP-AUTH:
X-MUA: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtUEACiaa0s+vGS6/2dsb2JhbACCJiyFKIkAxi4Mgi+CEQQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,413,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="290869756"
X-IP-Direction: IN
Received: from 1cust186.tnt1.lnd9.gbr.da.uu.net (HELO allison) ([62.188.100.186]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 05 Feb 2010 12:15:20 +0000
Message-ID: <004201caa654$6f5e5fc0$0601a8c0@allison>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <C78C9824.20159%michelle.cotton@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-05]
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:28:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, apps-discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:14:36 -0000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Cotton" <michelle.cotton@icann.org> To: "Fernando Gont" <fernando@gont.com.ar>; "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Cc: "tsvwg" <tsvwg@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:39 PM Fernando/Lars, Following-up on the thread below. Port Number requests are rejected for many reasons. Here are three of the most common reasons: 1 - Duplicates a function or protocol already in existence 2 - Is the secure version of a port already applied for or already in existence 3 - Port applied for is of local use only and traffic does not flow over the public Internet In general, a port number request is granted when an applicant can show a well-defined, public Internet protocol. The port must identify a named service that allows sessions to be created over the public Internet. The protocol, in a successful application, will be sufficiently documented to ensure that it is not local or a version of another service already in use. I hope this information helps. Please let me know if there is anything I can clarify. <tp> Michelle How straightforward and clear the above paragraphs are. Honest. Brilliant. I need to say this because recently I was critical of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04 for the lack of just this information, for describing the bureaucracy of port assignment/allocation/registration/reservation/request/grant........ without a) explaining what if anything is the difference between these terms b) describing what the point of the bureaucracy is. Your paragraphs above do more good than the whole of section 7, so please ditch section 7, include something along the lines above, and place it right at the front of the I-D, section 2. I would place reasons for granting before reasons for rejecting but otherwise I would change little. Tom Petch </tp> Michelle IANA On 1/27/10 11:20 AM, "Fernando Gont" <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote: >> Have there any cases in which use of a port has been rejected? > > Yes. > >> If so, what has been that reason? > > Depends :-) Maybe IANA can give some examples. > >> And what has been the criteria for actually "granting" the use of >> ports (as the above)? > > Satisfying the Expert Reviewer.