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

Magnus Westerlund <> Wed, 02 February 2011 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA1E3A7125; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 01:13:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.49
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hXYijZUVqzqd; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 01:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4833A6B9C; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 01:13:14 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b89ae0000036a3-ba-4d4920f08b25
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.9B.13987.0F0294D4; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:16:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:16:32 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:16:32 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; sv-SE; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cullen Jennings <>
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
References: <20110118212603.5733.34489.idtracker@localhost> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: IESG IESG <>, IETF discussion list <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 09:13:17 -0000

Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-02-01 18:19:
> So to summarize what you are saying, ports are allocated based on an arbitrary view of the expert review. When this person will say yes or no too can't be described and will change over time. 
> If that's how it works, there is not even any grounds for appeal of any given decision. You can't even use precedence as an argument. My view was the IESG has been trying to move to having much more concrete advice for registries that required expert review. If you agree that is about the right summary, then I'm pretty sure I can find plenty of other people that would agree with me that this is not OK. I'm not a fan of the WG could not get consensus on if we should allow A or not so we are just going to let the expert review do whatever they want. If the IETF could not come to consensus on if X  or Y were reasons to deny a registration, then I don't think the expert review should be able to deny a registration due to X or Y. 


Apparently you like to twist what I am saying in most negative way and
without considering the checks that are in place.

- I think general guidelines can and should be developed. But other than
high level goals this isn't the document. Here Joe has the start of a
document. But I do think that in long term this guidance may change.

- There is an appeal process where the IESG and then IAB gets to sanity
check the arguments that the reviewer + IANA has given towards the
appealing requestor.

- One can take a assignment request through the IETF process

I hope that we can get consensus on the guidelines, because I think that
would give the reviewers a lot of comfort being able to rely on that

Cullen, what are your suggestion for how to improve the document?


Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: