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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

As one of the authors/editors, I am fine with this change. Thanks!

On 2011-3-28, at 14:14, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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.