Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-05]
Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Fri, 05 February 2010 16:59 UTC
Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 C40843A6F46; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:59:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.417, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Kc-iPO7-mHok; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net (smtp1.xmundo.net [201.216.232.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DBB3A6F3F; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667C56B6B4E; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:00:09 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (144-174-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.174.144]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o15H02k4014625; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:00:03 -0300
Message-ID: <4B6C4E92.7040302@gont.com.ar>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:00:02 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-05]
References: <C78C9824.20159%michelle.cotton@icann.org> <004201caa654$6f5e5fc0$0601a8c0@allison> <4B6C4B69.20402@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B6C4B69.20402@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:00:08 -0300 (ART)
Cc: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, apps-discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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 16:59:20 -0000
Joe Touch wrote: > I hesitate to encode expert review rules - even the "most common" ones - > because then can too easily change, and putting them in a doc promotes > them as static. Further, this doc is about IANA issues, not the expert > review process. The question is not about how the expert review is performed, but rather about if that review is even possible (e.g., for closed protocols). If that review is not possible, then there's no way to decide on granting vs. rejecting the ports, and thus IANA is not really assigning the ports, but rather registering them (registering their use). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1