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]>]

Fwiw please see sec 8.1 of our doc which states which procedures of RFC 5226 are specified for each range, and already allows IESG approval as a path for user ports. 

Joe

On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 1/31/2011 9:16 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Lars,
>> 
>> On 1/31/2011 7:06 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On 2011-1-31, at 16:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>> The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request
>>>>>> for an IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports without recourse.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't follow. Assignments through IETF-stream documents do not go
>>>>> through expert review.
>>>> 
>>>> Then this should be made *much* clearer in the document. In fact, the
>>>> document says:
>>>> 
>>>> A key element of the procedural streamlining specified in this
>>>> document is to establish identical assignment procedures for all IETF
>>>> transport protocols.
>>>> 
>>>> I assumed that "all" meant "all", not "all except those through
>>>> IETF-stream documents"; others might have read it the same way I did.
>>> 
>>> The sentence you quote isn't related to the issue we're discussing. It
>>> is intended to say "a goal is that the procedures to get ports and
>>> service names are the same for UDP, TCP, DCCP and SCTP." (Maybe it
>>> would be clearer by explicitly naming these protocols in the document.)
>>> 
>>> But I see the point you're raising. The document should somewhere say
>>> that "Expert Review" is the procedure used for assignment requests
>>> made directly to IANA, whereas for documents on the IETF Stream, "IETF
>>> Consensus" is sufficient to make the assignment. In other words, no
>>> expert review doesn't really need to happen for those, since IETF
>>> Review and IESG Approval are at least equivalent.
>> 
>> RFC2434 already gives IANA these options.
> 
> As does RFC 5226 - its update (there is no substantive change between the two in this regard, FWIW).
> 
>> Perhaps - at best - we should include a ref to that.
> 
> And 5226 is already clearly cited.
> 
> No further action should be required.
> 
> Joe
> 
>> However, this document is not focused at changing what RFC2434 says, and
>> the above statement, IMO, does.
>> 
>> That's another can of worms, and should be reserved for a different
>> document.
>> 
>> Joe