Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06.txt> (Recommendations for Transport Port Number Uses) to Best Current Practice

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

David and Gorry,

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > >> My concerns is that BCP are commonly used by ADs to enforce
> compliance.
> > >> So I am wondering why this document is not just Informational?
> > >
> > > AFAIR, the WG wanted it to be BCP to be a stronger recommendation to
> > > protocol designers than would be an Informational doc.
> > >
> > Yes the document was marked BCP on 2011-01-26 after WG discussion and
> > advice from our ADs, but this was not based on offering advice to IANA
> (as
> > in RFC 6335), but rather guidance to protocol and applications designers
> > needing to use transport ports.
>
> I concur with Gorry's summary, and believe that BCP status is appropriate.
> I suggest teeing this concern (whether BCP vs. Informational is the right
> status for this sort of guidance document) up to the IESG for a decision.
>
> In its ordinary English (dictionary) meaning, "best current practice"
> certainly applies to this draft.  OTOH, the IETF notion of BCP has a
> rather specific meaning and some definite implications in practice.  FWIW,
> Alexey is not the only person who's made note of that concern wrt this
> draft.
>
> In my view, the IESG owns the decision (and decision criteria) on what
> should vs. should not be a BCP.  I think we should expand the draft writeup
> to note this concern (BCP vs. Informational status) as one that needs IESG
> attention and ask our ADs to ensure that it does get suitable IESG
> attention.
>
> Much as I prefer to resolve open issues before IESG Evaluation, in this
> case,
> I think the IESG needs to make a decision, and it is within reason for us
> to
> ask them to do so ;-).
>
> Thanks,
> --David (as Gorry's tsvwg WG co-chair)
>


That sounds exactly right. I'll wait until you are happy with the shepherd
writeup before I proceed.

Spencer