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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On 2/15/11 7:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> I propose some text for the draft near the bottom of this email....
> For the user ports the document should have some text along the lines
> of:
>
> There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second
> port for a secure version of protocol therefor the export reviewer
> should not reject a request for a second port to run a secure variant
> of the protocol over.

That feels close, but too prescriptive. Also, the requests are usually 
for a protocol with two ports, not a later request for a second port. 
How about:

There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second 
port for a secure version of protocol. Therefore, an expert reviewer 
should not reject a proposal for a protocol that uses a second part to 
run a secure variant for the sole reason that it using two ports.