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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert wrote:

>Hi,
>
>so I'm getting confused by the flood of email. But I think there is a serious disconnect here in the community:
>
>The purpose of iana-ports is to define the IANA procedures for managing the consolidated service-name/port-number registry. It is *not* a "handbook to the public on all things to know about ports assignments."
>  
>
I am in agreement.

>Yes, the document includes some material that is for the information of applicants. I think the basic idea was that we wanted to explain *why* the IANA procedures are the way they are. But that material is not covering everything, nor should (or could) it.
>
>Especially for the assignment path via Expert Review, people seem to want us to add a lot of details about what principles the expert team is using, how they communicate with the applicant, etc.
>
>I don't think this document is the right place for this content.
>
+1.

>I'm not even sure that we need any document with this content - I don't think there is any other IANA expert whose review process are prescribed by an RFC.
>  
>
I think some concerns were raised by the community. I think the 
discussion about where (if at all) this needs to be documented is a 
somewhat separate discussion.

My current understanding is that IESG is not planning to block this 
document because of lack of this information.

>Are we all on the same page here? If yes, we should push back. (And if no, we should discuss what to do.)
>  
>