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 <[e-mail]>]

Lars,

On 1/31/2011 7:06 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2011-1-31, at 16:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On 1/31/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request for an IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports without recourse.
>>>
>>> I don't follow. Assignments through IETF-stream documents do not go
>>> through expert review.
>>
>> Then this should be made *much* clearer in the document. In fact, the document says:
>>
>>    A key element of the procedural streamlining specified in this
>>    document is to establish identical assignment procedures for all IETF
>>    transport protocols.
>>
>> I assumed that "all" meant "all", not "all except those through IETF-stream documents"; others might have read it the same way I did.
>
> The sentence you quote isn't related to the issue we're discussing. It is intended to say "a goal is that the procedures to get ports and service names are the same for UDP, TCP, DCCP and SCTP." (Maybe it would be clearer by explicitly naming these protocols in the document.)
>
> But I see the point you're raising. The document should somewhere say that "Expert Review" is the procedure used for assignment requests made directly to IANA, whereas for documents on the IETF Stream, "IETF Consensus" is sufficient to make the assignment. In other words, no expert review doesn't really need to happen for those, since IETF Review and IESG Approval are at least equivalent.

RFC2434 already gives IANA these options.

Perhaps - at best - we should include a ref to that.

However, this document is not focused at changing what RFC2434 says, and 
the above statement, IMO, does.

That's another can of worms, and should be reserved for a different 
document.

Joe