Re: [tsvwg] New version of document for review
"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 09:29 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 D72D53A680C; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:29:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 C8Mwl7VGyZzS; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC263A67D9; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:29:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Trace: 320761961/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$PIPEX-ACCEPTED/pipex-customers/62.188.105.217/None/cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 62.188.105.217
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-SMTP-AUTH:
X-MUA: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQGAKtbVks+vGnZ/2dsb2JhbACCUi6FKoh5xVoKhCwE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,309,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="320761961"
X-IP-Direction: IN
Received: from 1cust217.tnt2.lnd9.gbr.da.uu.net (HELO allison) ([62.188.105.217]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 20 Jan 2010 09:29:21 +0000
Message-ID: <001701ca99aa$a75906c0$0601a8c0@allison>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <C775D4C1.1F7D2%michelle.cotton@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] New version of document for review
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:28:27 +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
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:29:32 -0000
Michele You said that feedback would be appreciated:-) I have a problem with this I-D in that it would appear to make no distinction between allocation and assignment, and would seem to include registration in the mix as well, at least at times, while hinting that whatever these may be, ownership is something else. In the limited context of transport identifiers, this may not cause confusion but in closely allied registries, allocation and assignment are fundamentally different processes and those who interchange the two are confused and cause confusion. If, as I suspect, you are using the terms interchangeably, then at the very least you need a terminology section as 1.1 to say that the two (or three) terms are used interchangeably, but for myself, I would regard this as inadequate. Really, you should choose one and eliminate the other(s) with a brief note to say that historically, both were used but as of now, a........ is the correct term. More fundamentally, this I-D is largely about a bureaucratic process without stating clearly, IMO, what the point of this process is, except to generate bureaucracy (and confusion over this would appear to have triggered some discussion recently on the tsvwg list). The I-D should state up front, not hint at it in section 7, just why this bureaucracy should exist, of what benefit it would be bureaucracy is to the IETF etc. The I-D argues for improving the bureacracy, not for why it should exist. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Cotton" <michelle.cotton@icann.org> To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; <dnsop@ietf.org>; <tsvwg@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 5:16 PM Subject: [tsvwg] New version of document for review Attn: TSVWG Working Group, DNSOPS Working Group and APPS AREA Working Group There is a new version of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04.txt Please review and send comments. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thank you, Michelle Cotton (on behalf of the ports teams)
- New version of document for review Michelle Cotton
- Re: [tsvwg] New version of document for review tom.petch
- Re: [tsvwg] New version of document for review Joe Touch
- Re: [DNSOP] New version of document for review Doug Barton