Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06.txt> (Recommendations for Transport Port Number Uses) to Best Current Practice

[[e-mail]]

I submitted a new shepherd writeup, based on this and what I found on the
list.

Gorry

> David and Gorry,
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> > >> My concerns is that BCP are commonly used by ADs to enforce
>> compliance.
>> > >> So I am wondering why this document is not just Informational?
>> > >
>> > > AFAIR, the WG wanted it to be BCP to be a stronger recommendation to
>> > > protocol designers than would be an Informational doc.
>> > >
>> > Yes the document was marked BCP on 2011-01-26 after WG discussion and
>> > advice from our ADs, but this was not based on offering advice to IANA
>> (as
>> > in RFC 6335), but rather guidance to protocol and applications
>> designers
>> > needing to use transport ports.
>>
>> I concur with Gorry's summary, and believe that BCP status is
>> appropriate.
>> I suggest teeing this concern (whether BCP vs. Informational is the
>> right
>> status for this sort of guidance document) up to the IESG for a
>> decision.
>>
>> In its ordinary English (dictionary) meaning, "best current practice"
>> certainly applies to this draft.  OTOH, the IETF notion of BCP has a
>> rather specific meaning and some definite implications in practice.
>> FWIW,
>> Alexey is not the only person who's made note of that concern wrt this
>> draft.
>>
>> In my view, the IESG owns the decision (and decision criteria) on what
>> should vs. should not be a BCP.  I think we should expand the draft
>> writeup
>> to note this concern (BCP vs. Informational status) as one that needs
>> IESG
>> attention and ask our ADs to ensure that it does get suitable IESG
>> attention.
>>
>> Much as I prefer to resolve open issues before IESG Evaluation, in this
>> case,
>> I think the IESG needs to make a decision, and it is within reason for
>> us
>> to
>> ask them to do so ;-).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --David (as Gorry's tsvwg WG co-chair)
>>
>
>
> That sounds exactly right. I'll wait until you are happy with the shepherd
> writeup before I proceed.
>
> Spencer
>