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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

The procedures that are specified - for ALL assignments - are the 
PROCEDURES - the word itself is used specifically in the heading of 
section 8.

That does not refer to the "principles" - again for which there are more 
than sufficient wiggle words, and which already cite existing RFCs that 
have provisions that already limit the role of Expert Review and allow 
for appeals.

Again - this document is NOT focused on those principles. IANA - and 
more specifically its review team - is NOT required to publish any such 
principles (as per RFC 5226). If they continue to be a source of 
contention, then section 7 should be removed.

Joe

On 1/31/2011 6:51 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 1/31/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request
>>> for an IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports without recourse.
>>
>> I don't follow. Assignments through IETF-stream documents do not go
>> through expert review.
>
> Then this should be made *much* clearer in the document. In fact, the
> document says:
>
> A key element of the procedural streamlining specified in this
> document is to establish identical assignment procedures for all IETF
> transport protocols.
>
> I assumed that "all" meant "all", not "all except those through
> IETF-stream documents"; others might have read it the same way I did.
> Further, the wording throughout the template description in 8.1 makes it
> sound like that the restrictions in this document apply to everything
> that needs a template, which clearly includes IETF-stream documents.
>
>> And I've never witnessed IANA rejecting requests coming through the
>> IETF.
>
> This document is about new restrictions for the future, not what has
> happened in the past.
>
>> But even if they did, there is an appeals procedure.
>
> That is slim comfort to a WG that has designed a protocol that has good
> design reasons for needing two ports and, at the last minute is told
> that they either have to re-design from scratch or go through an appeals
> process to justify their design to IANA. It's fine that they have to
> justify it to the IESG (well, fine to me; other greybeards seem to not
> like that so much these days), but there should be no way that IANA can
> say "you cannot get ports assigned because this new RFC says that you
> designed your protocol wrong". If what you say above about "Assignments
> through IETF-stream documents do not go through expert review." is true,
> it should be plainly stated in the introduction to the document.