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]>]

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.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    o  Ports in the System Ports range (0-1023) are also available for
       assignment through IANA.  Because the System Ports range is both
       the smallest and the most densely allocated, the requirements for
       new assignments are more strict than those for the User Ports
       range, and will only be granted under the "IETF Review" or "IESG
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       Approval" procedures [RFC5226].  A request for a System Port
       ^^^^^^^^^
       number MUST document *both* why using a port number from the
       Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable *and* why using a port number
       from the User Ports range is unsuitable for that application.

3) section 7 has NOTHING TO DO with the procedures this document 
updates. That section has plenty of words to avoid any such impression. 
And no, we don't need to define "strives", IMO - since NOTHING IN THAT 
SECTION IS BINDING.

Again, since this is a persistent cause of confusion, I quote from that 
section:

    This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA handles
    the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry and
    attempts to conserve the port number space.  This description is
    intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port
    numbers.  IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                           **************
    may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ***********

If you need more explicit words, the term "non-binding" can be added.

-------

There's a doc I drafted in TSVWG which is a more appropriate venue to 
discuss this issue (draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use0. I encourage those 
interested in these issues to continue discussion on that list, not on 
this general list.

For this document, if this section is causing confusion, it should be 
removed, since it is already included in this other doc and can be 
vetted there.

Joe