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 2/1/2011 9:19 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> So to summarize what you are saying, ports are allocated based on an
> arbitrary view of the expert review. When this person will say yes or no
> too can't be described and will change over time.

See my other post. Section 8.1.1 already states that there are other 
means besides expert review.

> If that's how it works, there is not even any grounds for appeal of
> any given decision.

The grounds are "disagree with the advice of the Expert Review". The 
IESG can overturn those decisions on that basis alone. They can - and 
have - held up decisions that have come from community consensus as 
well. I.e., this is no different from other appeals process. It is based 
on the strength of the argument.

 From your earlier post:

> 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.

The burden of proof, especially when asking for multiple ports, ought to 
be on the applicant. "very little evidence" is the issue, and if that 
didn't convince me, then there's an appeals process listed in RFC 5226 
which you could have used to take that "very little evidence" to 
convince the IESG to overturn the decision.

Joe