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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
> useful:
>
> 1) the current doc already explicitly states the procedures for assignment
> in each range of ports (see Sec 8.1.1).
>
> 2) Sec 8.1.1 *already* states that IESG approval through IETF process is a
> valid path for assignment, distinct from Expert Review. Since that appears
> to be a point of confusion, I'll quote it directly:
>
>   o  Ports in the User Ports range (1024-49151) are available for
>      assignment through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers
>      upon successful assignment.  Because assigning a port number for a
>      specific application consumes a fraction of the shared resource
>      that is the port number registry, IANA will require the requester
>      to document the intended use of the port number.  This
>      documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" procedure
>      [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert review the
>      request to determine whether to grant the assignment.  The
>      submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number in
>      the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given application.
>      Ports in the User Ports range may also be assigned under the "IETF
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226], which is how most
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      assignments for IETF protocols are handled.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For the purposes of clarification, then, this document has no impact whatsoever
on ports assigned through the IESG process? I.e., if my WG submits a proposed
standard document to the IESG and it asks for two ports, I'm not going to get
pushback based on the claim that this document imposes a presumption that
that's wrong?

-Ekr