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]>]

On 1/29/2011 8:53 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 17:29 , Michelle Cotton wrote:
>
>> We are changing that process right now.  We have begun to report the
>> reviewer (with the review) in the email to the requester.
>>
>> We just need to make sure this small change is communicated to those experts
>> that are part of review "teams" as their individual names are not published
>> on the main list of registries.
>>
>> I don't think it needs to go in this document as this is already in
>> progress.
>>
>> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> As long as we agree that is the process, it's not a big deal to me if
> it is in or out of the document but I don't see any reason not to put
> it into the document.

The reason is that this document isn't about the IANA process for 
reviewing ports; it's about unifying the port registries.

RFC2780 specifies Expert Review as *one* of the viable means by which 
IANA can decide on transport protocol port assignments:

    Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace.
    Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
    Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
    Action process.

The term "Expert Review" is defined in RFC 2434. Neither document 
mandates that IANA either act on the advice such a review, nor that the 
reviewer identity be disclosed as part of that process.

Further, the list of such experts is known by IANA and the IESG:

    Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the
    IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a
    new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally
    appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director
    will appoint replacements if necessary.

If you want to codify this process further, you would need to revise 
RFC2434 - e.g., to require the disclosure of the expert reviewer. 
However, that is not in the scope of this document.

Joe