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

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get at. 

On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On 2/15/11 7:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> I propose some text for the draft near the bottom of this email....
>> For the user ports the document should have some text along the lines
>> of:
>> 
>> There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second
>> port for a secure version of protocol therefor the export reviewer
>> should not reject a request for a second port to run a secure variant
>> of the protocol over.
> 
> That feels close, but too prescriptive. Also, the requests are usually for a protocol with two ports, not a later request for a second port. How about:
> 
> There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second port for a secure version of protocol. Therefore, an expert reviewer should not reject a proposal for a protocol that uses a second part to run a secure variant for the sole reason that it using two ports.