IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 01 February 2011 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6073A6F64; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:35:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2-1xWR5IDQ9; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AA23A6844; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p11Ib5TE011207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D4852D1.8060106@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:37:05 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Subject: 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
References: <20110118212603.5733.34489.idtracker@localhost> <B88A8A82-9C4A-40AC-89AF-F177260760F7@cisco.com> <ECA80A72-4E72-44D2-B40E-C90D7197E8C5@nokia.com> <4D421795.70505@isi.edu> <EFADE5D0-BB33-4418-B743-DFEC11B12740@cisco.com> <4D44F85D.5030407@isi.edu> <4D457FD9.5030905@vpnc.org> <B1E38EDF-E78E-47E2-B9A9-D7320A908217@nokia.com> <4D46CC62.1040006@vpnc.org> <3EEDEA1C-C34B-4F39-8E6E-AEDE50C1E504@nokia.com> <4D46D1D3.10701@vpnc.org> <F2152494-8C79-4A0F-951F-B3DB1D274A61@cisco.com> <4D46E623.3080602@ericsson.com> <9E89C43A-EB2A-4DAB-9B12-A740612783E8@cisco.com> <4D47DCF2.1000200@ericsson.com> <4D483C4F.3080507@vpnc.org> <4D484543.7010601@isi.edu> <AANLkTimifgn=UV53Ndsj3PvjQ54j=awKQbHxx=t9H0CD@mail.gmail.com> <4D48506E.2020200@isi.edu> <AANLkTinFLrKMKiEzJOYjZ33KX1D5bunaOctqja5+=8CH@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinFLrKMKiEzJOYjZ33KX1D5bunaOctqja5+=8CH@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:35:31 -0000

On 2/1/2011 10:29 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
> I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear.
>
> This document has an affirmative statement against the use of multiple
> ports for TLS.

I'm sorry, but it does not.

I states a goal, and a preference, and has plenty of wiggle room as I've 
repeatedly quoted, and will quote again here:

    This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA handles
    the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry and
    attempts to conserve the port number space.  This description is
    intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port
    numbers.  IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling
    assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions
    may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet.

> AFAIK that statement is not part of present written policy. Is that correct?

See the word above "principles". That isn't policy.

IANA isn't bound by it (see the last sentence). The Expert Review team 
is not bound by any written policy - RFC 5226 does not require that we 
have one, and we don't.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email