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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 19 January 2015 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7991D1B2A3B; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 03:54:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUlNG46Cf3Hu; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 03:54:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (ext-bt.isode.com [217.34.220.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD331B2A3A; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 03:54:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1421668456; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=amAAHG6ByLkCv7d9zAEO8/y5p4+wew/FJkm67hzA01U=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=jyRf24kU+9ap8q7VF06vF3JwJg0X8AhGUqOi7n9rCiL0rY3PwnI/24yC4LF5g3Mnju24aF z2urYzHIyiyLj7yp0N6XZJDEPc42CyiEWKYJmdDN3ikiyTsIkX50urSoFCKwxVob65WESo 4ZxMalTSqHM8sPlqYmwaA/YEOKhNYro=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VLzwZgAKaCy1@waldorf.isode.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:54:15 +0000
Message-ID: <54BCEFB1.8030802@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:51:13 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06.txt> (Recommendations for Transport Port Number Uses) to Best Current Practice
References: <20141208235619.4442.37821.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54A990F4.9040509@isode.com> <54B95EDC.9000905@isi.edu> <54B9639F.7020905@isode.com> <54B965F9.6090704@isi.edu> <691f86d47ca683d48ab707d12e999534.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362E5919@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <CAKKJt-eBYdFsvweoLY3k8WzuN2kTXALonGdzwbepdXORT7PmZQ@mail.gmail.com> <cb46e9b1a7aafed84df6177bb63462b8.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <cb46e9b1a7aafed84df6177bb63462b8.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p6lWfkdhdo90_2NWKmY923xu34I>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:54:19 -0000

On 19/01/2015 09:02, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> I submitted a new shepherd writeup, based on this and what I found on the
> list.
Sounds fair. Thank you for discussing this further in the write-up.
> Gorry
>
>> David and Gorry,
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> 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