Re: [port-srv-reg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports: status of draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use

Hi, all,

Regarding the ref to touch-tsvwg-port-use...

Again, the issue is being confused. That doc is intended to provide 
advice to users, not constraints to IANA or to the Expert Review team. 
Consensus of that document would mean consensus on how we encourage 
users, *that is all*. If a BCP (and that's the intent), it's practices 
for the *user*, not "the BCP documenting how ER decisions are made or 
IANA policy is determined". There's no such document anywhere in the 
IETF - people come with their own views and express them; the ER team, 
and IANA itself are no different.

I'm happy to have that be a TSVWG document if that intent remains. I'll 
let it expire if the goal is to bind anyone - including users.

The fact is that the review team can make whatever recommendation it 
wants, and is expected to defends *its decisions*. That does not mean 
the process is required to be completely open, any more than IESG 
telechats are.

Joe

On 2/17/2011 5:55 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi group,
> The following comment was made by Cullen:
>
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I find the the following text a bit outrageous.
>>
>> Applicants
>> should be aware that IANA decisions are not required to be bound to
>> these principles. These principles and general advice to users on
>> port use are expected to change over time and are therefore
>> documented separately, please see [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-use].
>>
>> The basic complaints about this draft can mostly be summarized as a
>> view that everything that the authors of this draft could not get
>> agreement on in the WG, they just made the draft silent on and Joe is
>> asserting that the expert reviews can do whatever they think was best
>> regardless of any IETF consensus and then people can appeal it. So
>> this text would have this BCP assert that the place to find out what
>> was OK and not OK was in documented in an individual draft written by
>> Joe. This is not OK. Consider if I asked that instead, it pointed at
>> I-D.fluffy-port-use. I'm sure many people would think that was totally
>> unacceptable. I don't see how this is any more acceptable. It seems
>> like an inappropriate change to make without a new LC. I don't think
>> that it is OK for a BCP on how to register ports to point people at a
>> spec without consensus approval that says what is OK to register and
>> what is not.
>>
> Ignoring the emotional part of the argument, I think I share his concern
> about pointing to an individual draft (which is clearly quite raw at
> this point) and not a WG document. I would personally feel more
> comfortable if [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-use] was resubmitted as a TSVWG
> document. Any objections to this (especially from Joe)?
>
> Thanks,
> Alexey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg