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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Agreed, thanks to Paul for the proposed text.

On 2/15/11 9:02 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get
> at.
> 
> On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> On 2/15/11 7:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>> I propose some text for the draft near the bottom of this
>>> email.... For the user ports the document should have some text
>>> along the lines of:
>>> 
>>> There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a
>>> second port for a secure version of protocol therefor the export
>>> reviewer should not reject a request for a second port to run a
>>> secure variant of the protocol over.
>> 
>> That feels close, but too prescriptive. Also, the requests are
>> usually for a protocol with two ports, not a later request for a
>> second port. How about:
>> 
>> There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a
>> second port for a secure version of protocol. Therefore, an expert
>> reviewer should not reject a proposal for a protocol that uses a
>> second part to run a secure variant for the sole reason that it
>> using two ports.