Re: [port-srv-reg] Comments on SVN revision 68

[Michelle Cotton <[e-mail]>]

All,

Here are our comments/questions for the proposed version 07.
Let us know if anything below needs clarification.

Thanks,

Michelle and Pearl

******* 

1.  In Section 2, we believe the following should be changed from:

...so that management requests can complete in a timely manner.

To:
...so that requests can be completed in a timely manner.


2. Related to section 5.1, what about the rule that there are no consecutive
hypens?
Could someone register a---------5 as a service name/port number?
Are there any issues with that?

3. In section 8.1, we saw this part taken out:

 Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific
   transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name
   (but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all
   transport protocols.

I also read the section below that paragraph in the document. Just to
confirm, there are no situations where a service name would be registered
without identifying a transport protocol?

4.  In section 8.1, there is the list of what is required to apply for a
port number assignment.  Are those pieces of information going to fully
replace the current application form or will we retain some of the other
questions currently asked?

5. Also in section 8.1, the document says:

  If the registration request is for the addition of a new transport
protocol to an already assigned service name, IANA needs to confirm with the
Registrant for the existing assignment whether this addition is appropriate.

If the registration request is for a service name overloading a port number
(see Section 5), IANA needs to confirm with the Registrant for the existing
service name whether the registration of the overloading is appropriate.


Is checking with the listed contact person be sufficient in these cases? If
they are not available we check with the organization/company.


6. In section 8.1, we think this should be slightly changed

   When IANA receives a registration request - containing the above
   information - that is requesting a port number, IANA SHALL initiate
   an "Expert Review" [RFC5226] in order to determine whether an
   assignment should be made.  For requests that do not include a port
   number, IANA SHOULD assign the service name under a simple "First
   Come First Served" policy [RFC5226].

It should say something like "For requests that are not requesting a port
number,"


7.  In section 8.5, what about mergers or acquisitions? How are those to be
handled in the case of port number/service name contact information?

8.  In section 8.6 it uses the term "administrative contact".  This should
be changed to the Registrant.

9.  In section 10, just double checking...should "duplicante" be
"duplicate"????

10. In section 5.1, there is a typo 'maximu'.  Should be maximum?

11. In section 6.1, it mentions '64-bit'.  We noticed that the new version
changed all 16-bit to 'sixteen-bit'.  So would it be consistent to use
'sixty-four-bit' to replace '64-bit'? They should probably at least be in
the same format.


12.  The following paragraph describes that we only assign the requested
protocol and mark others 'Reserved':

"The new allocation procedure conserves resources by allocating a port
number to an application for only those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP
and/or DCCP) it actually uses.  The port number will be marked as Reserved -
instead of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other transport
protocols."

QUESTION: When reserving the non-used protocols, are we putting additional
lines for each entry?  This will make it very clear however the registry
will get much larger.  (and it is already quite large)

13. In section 8.1 about the Registrant and Contact, we have a clarifying
question.

Will a role account acceptable? I imagine that is partly up to how we handle
the contacts internally.  If a registrant wants the contact to be
[e-mail] then this should be OK.  Would we require an acutal
person's name to go with it?  Or would "Technical Department" be sufficient?
Also, should we add the word "valid" to the email address so they know it
should be a valid/working email address?

14. This document still uses one instance of "assignee" in section 8.1.
Should that be changed to "original requester" or Registrant?





On 9/29/10 11:16 AM, "Lars Eggert" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> OK, I suggest everyone give the current version a read, and then we ship it.
> 
> Lars
> 
>