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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 01 February 2011 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6665D3A6844; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:26:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.312, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yFUTHsYt320; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:26:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546AC3A6FC3; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:26:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so3012362gwb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:29:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.96.1 with SMTP id t1mr3929053agb.54.1296584972511; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.116.7 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:29:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D48506E.2020200@isi.edu>
References: <20110118212603.5733.34489.idtracker@localhost> <B88A8A82-9C4A-40AC-89AF-F177260760F7@cisco.com> <ECA80A72-4E72-44D2-B40E-C90D7197E8C5@nokia.com> <4D421795.70505@isi.edu> <EFADE5D0-BB33-4418-B743-DFEC11B12740@cisco.com> <4D44F85D.5030407@isi.edu> <4D457FD9.5030905@vpnc.org> <B1E38EDF-E78E-47E2-B9A9-D7320A908217@nokia.com> <4D46CC62.1040006@vpnc.org> <3EEDEA1C-C34B-4F39-8E6E-AEDE50C1E504@nokia.com> <4D46D1D3.10701@vpnc.org> <F2152494-8C79-4A0F-951F-B3DB1D274A61@cisco.com> <4D46E623.3080602@ericsson.com> <9E89C43A-EB2A-4DAB-9B12-A740612783E8@cisco.com> <4D47DCF2.1000200@ericsson.com> <4D483C4F.3080507@vpnc.org> <4D484543.7010601@isi.edu> <AANLkTimifgn=UV53Ndsj3PvjQ54j=awKQbHxx=t9H0CD@mail.gmail.com> <4D48506E.2020200@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:29:31 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinFLrKMKiEzJOYjZ33KX1D5bunaOctqja5+=8CH@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: 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
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:26:22 -0000

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/1/2011 10:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Joe Touch<touch@isi.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>> To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
>>> useful:
>>>
>>> 1) the current doc already explicitly states the procedures for
>>> assignment
>>> in each range of ports (see Sec 8.1.1).
>>>
>>> 2) Sec 8.1.1 *already* states that IESG approval through IETF process is
>>> a
>>> valid path for assignment, distinct from Expert Review. Since that
>>> appears
>>> to be a point of confusion, I'll quote it directly:
>>>
>>>   o  Ports in the User Ports range (1024-49151) are available for
>>>      assignment through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers
>>>      upon successful assignment.  Because assigning a port number for a
>>>      specific application consumes a fraction of the shared resource
>>>      that is the port number registry, IANA will require the requester
>>>      to document the intended use of the port number.  This
>>>      documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" procedure
>>>      [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert review the
>>>      request to determine whether to grant the assignment.  The
>>>      submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number in
>>>      the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given application.
>>>      Ports in the User Ports range may also be assigned under the "IETF
>>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>      Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226], which is how most
>>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>      assignments for IETF protocols are handled.
>>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> For the purposes of clarification, then, this document has no impact
>> whatsoever
>> on ports assigned through the IESG process? I.e., if my WG submits a
>> proposed
>> standard document to the IESG and it asks for two ports, I'm not going to
>> get
>> pushback based on the claim that this document imposes a presumption that
>> that's wrong?
>
> The ONLY impact is in the format of information required for an assignment.
>
> (i.e., yes, if you're asking that there's no change to the process, that's
> correct)
>
> However, IANA can still pushback, and can use whatever advice it sees fit to
> do so, during IESG review. You can get that pushback now. This document
> doesn't change that AT ALL.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear.

This document has an affirmative statement against the use of multiple
ports for TLS.

AFAIK that statement is not part of present written policy. Is that correct?

-Ekr