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

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

Thanks - yes that makes it clear and I like the way IANA handles all of this.

On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:55 , Michelle Cotton wrote:

> Cullen,
> 
> We do have some technical expertise within the IANA staff, however our
> expertise is more aligned with the process of creating and maintaining
> registries.  Part of that includes relying on the experts that the IESG
> designates to make the decisions for requests that utilize the "Expert
> Review" policy in RFC 5226.
> 
> In the past, if there is strong disagreement from an expert and the
> requester disagrees, we have brought the Transport Area Directors into the
> communications to see if all parties can come to an agreement.  In almost
> all cases, this is where a final decision is made.  If that set of folks can
> not come to a conclusion, we then would default to going to the IESG.  With
> all requests, if there is any uncertainty as to what decision should be
> made, we go to the IESG for guidance.
> 
> We do rely on the technical expertise of the appointed experts for all
> registries, but we ALWAYS have the possibility to seek guidance form the
> IESG.
> 
> I don't believe we have ever had an official appeals with ports (Knocking on
> wood really hard!).
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> --Michelle
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/31/11 8:33 AM, "Cullen Jennings" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> So IANA has a huge amount of technical expertise and takes maintaing the
>> registries very seriously. I've seen them catch technical mistakes that made
>> all the way through WG and IESG review. I've got huge respect for technical
>> competence of IANA and in particular Michelle. So I'm not questions that but
>> I don't recall seeing them override an expert on a technical issue. I'd be
>> happy to hear of examples but lets consider the example I am actually
>> concerned about here.
>> 
>> I put in a request for a latency sensitive protocol that uses DTLS and request
>> a different port for the secure version. Joe as expert review says we should
>> redesign the protocol to use something like STARTLS and run on one port. I
>> assert, with very little evidence, that will not meet the latency goals of the
>> protocol. Joe does not agree.
>> 
>> So Michelle, in that case, would you be willing to override Joe? I'm sure you
>> would be willing to help facilitate any conversations, bring in other people
>> such as ADs that can help etc. I was sort of working on the assumption that
>> you would not override Joe in this case and the the only path forward would be
>> an appeal to Lars but perhaps that is just a bad assumption on my part.
>> Appeals are really the worst way possible to resolve things. I have a hard
>> time imagining that IANA would want to engage in a technical discussion to
>> resolve this and instead relies on the expert reviewer. I'll note that the
>> expert review may report to IANA but they are selected by and replaced by the
>> IESG. 
>> 
>> The important point here is that I really don't care if it is Joe or IANA that
>> is saying no - I think this document should be clear that this BCP can not be
>> used as grounds for rejecting the request for a second port for security.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:09 , Michelle Cotton wrote:
>> 
>>> David has said this well.  Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Please let me know if there are any other questions.
>>> 
>>> --Michelle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/30/11 10:52 AM, "David Conrad" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Cullen,
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 29, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>>>>> AFAICT, the experts team reports to IANA. We make recommendations to
>>>>>> them. They are the ones who have the conversation with the applicant.
>>>>>> They can take our advice or not - that's their decision.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think you are pretty misrepresenting the situation. My impression of the
>>>>> reality of the situation is that if the IANA did not like the advice of the
>>>>> expert reviewer, they might ask the AD to override but short of that they
>>>>> pretty much do whatever the expert says.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Joe is closer. 
>>>> 
>>>> In general, IANA staff are not technical experts in any of the wide variety
>>>> of
>>>> areas for which they are asked to provide registry services.  As such, they
>>>> rely on technical experts to provide input/advice/recommendations.  In the
>>>> past, there were some very rare cases in which the advice provided by the
>>>> technical experts was deemed insufficient and IANA staff looked to the ADs
>>>> or
>>>> the IESG for additional input.  However, at least historically, IANA staff
>>>> viewed the maintenance of the registries as their responsibility (at the
>>>> direction of the IESG), not the technical experts' responsibility. I would
>>>> be
>>>> surprised if this had changed.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -drc
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ietf mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cullen Jennings
>> For corporate legal information go to:
>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>> 
>> 
> 


Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html