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 <[e-mail]>]

Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-27 01:12:
>
> I'm really glad to see this draft in LC at long last and it is a great
improvement to the current situation - thank you to all the people that
put work into this. I have two significant problems with it that I think
should be resolved before being published
>
>
>
> Big Issues 1: I don't like mandating one port for secure and not
secure versions of a protocol
>
> I don't think this reflects IETF consensus given the number of
protocols that deliberately choses to use two ports. I also don't think
that it is a good idea in all cases. I believe the decision should be
left to the people designing the protocol if they want one port or two.
Let me give some examples
>


We have extensive discussion on this in the WG last call. There was no
consensus for having two ports. At the same time we did also have no
consensus on mandating one port for any future protocol. Thus we
adjusted the text to say in Section 7.2:

IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service or
application

To my knowledge "strive" is not a binding RFC2119 term. I also think it
is a good trade-off with the intention of preserving the space as well
as possible with only assigning one port, and still allow for more than
one if it really is needed.

Is it the above text that triggered your comment or some other text?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------