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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>Agreed, thanks to Paul for the proposed text.
>
>On 2/15/11 9:02 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>  
>
>>Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get
>>at.
>>    
>>
Agreed, I will add this as an RFC Editor's note.

>>On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>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
>>>is using two ports.
>>>      
>>>