Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-05]
Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 05 February 2010 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 ADAED3A6F55; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:06:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 OlQvVJLiMEE4; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:06:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44413A6DD7; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:06:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [75.214.178.5] (5.sub-75-214-178.myvzw.com [75.214.178.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o15H5How018805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B6C4FCC.3060302@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:05:16 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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> <4B6C4E92.7040302@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4B6C4E92.7040302@gont.com.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig45D18553576E708A0F7611BC"
X-MailScanner-ID: o15H5How018805
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
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 17:06:08 -0000
Hi, Fernando, Fernando Gont wrote: > 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). First, expert review is advisory only. IANA decides based on that input, but isn't bound to it. Second, closed protocols still need to explain something about what they do, i.e., their basic commands, packet size ranges, support for versioning, use of congestion control for UDP variants, etc. Specifics aren't needed to do the review, and applications always contain the needed info - even 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). The above might clarify that point. IANA is assigning, by your distinction. Joe