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

Hi, all,

I had tried, apparently in vain, to update section 7 to address the LC 
concerns.

I don't think that the path below provides a way forward. Perhaps it 
would be more productive to remove section 7 in its entirety. Let me 
know if you agree.

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