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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 08/12/2014 23:56, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
> (tsvwg) to consider the following document:
> - 'Recommendations for Transport Port Number Uses'
>    <draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2014-12-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>     This document provides recommendations to application and service
>     designers on how to use the transport protocol port number space. IT
>     complements (but does not update) RFC6335, which focuses on IANA
>     process.
My apologies for late review of the document. I generally think that the 
document is well written and is nearly done, but I have some 
comments/concerns.

1. Introduction

    This document provides information and advice to system designers on
    the use of transport port numbers. It provides a detailed historical
    background of the evolution of transport port numbers and their
    multiple meanings. It also provides specific recommendations to
    system designers on how to use assigned port numbers. Note that this
    document provides information to potential port number applicants
    that complements the IANA process described in BCP165 [RFC6335], but
    it does not update that document.

I am a bit confused by the status and purpose of this document. It is a 
BCP, but the introducting
says that it is purely informational. But then the document has lots of 
RFC 2119 language.
Is there any intent for this document
to be of use to port expert reviewers, for example if they want to point
out why a particular port registration request is rejected?


In 7.1:

          Additional port numbers are not intended to replicate an
          existing service. For example, if a device is configured to
          use a typical web browser then it the port number used for
          that service is a copy of the http service that is already
          assigned to port number 80 and does not warrant a new
          assignment. However, an automated system that happens to use
          HTTP framing - but cannot be accessed by a browser - might be

I have some concerns about "be access by a browser".

One particular case I have in mind is when a service expose some data 
using JSON or ASN.1 (for example a certificate revocation list is 
returned), but also allow a browser to view certificate in a nice form 
using HTML (e.g. for debugging or convenience). I don't think the 
ability to return HTML automatically disqualify this from being an 
independent service, because the whole functionality supported by the 
service can't be implemented just by use of returned HTML.

Inserting "solely" before "by a browser" would address my concern.

          a new service. A good way to tell is "can an unmodified client
          of the existing service interact with the proposed service"?
          If so, that service would be a copy of an existing service and
          would not merit a new assignment.

In 7.4:

    Note however that a new service might not be eligible for IANA
    assignment of both an insecure and a secure variant of the same
    service, and similarly IANA might be skeptical of an assignment for

I don't think use of wording like "IANA might be skeptical" is correct 
here, because IANA doesn't define policy on this. IETF does. So let's 
call things with right names and don't misuse "IANA" here.

    an insecure port number for a secure service. In both cases,
    security of the service is compromised by adding the insecure port
    number assignment.

Similarly (in the same section): "IANA currently permits ..."