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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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