Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet AssignedNumbers Authority (IANA) Proceduresfor the Management of the Service Nameand Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

Hi, Tom,

Thanks - yes, I can see where reordering the sentences in that paragraph 
could make the issue much clearer. I'll do that in the pending update ...

Joe

On 2/2/2011 3:22 AM, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Touch"<touch@isi.edu>
> To: "Paul Hoffman"<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
> "IETF discussion list"<ietf@ietf.org>;<tsvwg@ietf.org>; "IESG IESG"
> <iesg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:39 PM
>
>> 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.
>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Joe
>
> I think that it is a point of confusion because the text is confused
> (well, it confuses me:-(.
>
> If you know in advance that there are two independent paths that
> can be taken, then you can read that meaning into it.
>
> If you do not know that, then having read
>                                                                       "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"
>
> then it is obvious that Expert Review always happens, even when a later
> sentence talks about 'may also be assigned'.
>
> To make the two paths clear, the text should be reordered eg
>
>           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.
>
> For most IETF protocols, ports in the User Ports range will be assigned under
> the "IETF
> Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226] and no further
> documentation is required.
>
> Where these procedures do not apply, then the requester must
> input the documentation 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.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>>
>>      o  Ports in the System Ports range (0-1023) are also available for
>>         assignment through IANA.  Because the System Ports range is both
>>         the smallest and the most densely allocated, the requirements for
>>         new assignments are more strict than those for the User Ports
>>         range, and will only be granted under the "IETF Review" or "IESG
>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>         Approval" procedures [RFC5226].  A request for a System Port
>>         ^^^^^^^^^
>>         number MUST document *both* why using a port number from the
>>         Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable *and* why using a port number
>>         from the User Ports range is unsuitable for that application.
>>
>> 3) section 7 has NOTHING TO DO with the procedures this document
>> updates. That section has plenty of words to avoid any such impression.
>> And no, we don't need to define "strives", IMO - since NOTHING IN THAT
>> SECTION IS BINDING.
>>
>> Again, since this is a persistent cause of confusion, I quote from that
>> section:
>>
>>      This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA handles
>>      the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry and
>>      attempts to conserve the port number space.  This description is
>>      intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port
>>      numbers.  IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling
>>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>      assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                                                             **************
>>      may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet.
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>      ***********
>>
>> If you need more explicit words, the term "non-binding" can be added.
>>
>> -------
>>
>> There's a doc I drafted in TSVWG which is a more appropriate venue to
>> discuss this issue (draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use0. I encourage those
>> interested in these issues to continue discussion on that list, not on
>> this general list.
>>
>> For this document, if this section is causing confusion, it should be
>> removed, since it is already included in this other doc and can be
>> vetted there.
>>
>> Joe
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf