Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Re: [DNSOP] New version of document for review

[Michelle Cotton <[e-mail]>]

All,

Here are some questions/comments for the latest version of the document.

I hope they are helpful.  Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification regarding my comments.

Thanks,

Michelle


On page 4 there is a statement that says “A key element of the procedural streamlining specified in this document is to establish identical assignment procedures for all IETF transport protocols”.
In the process for applying for SCTP ports, we usually ask the requester an additional question.
“What specific SCTP capability is used by the application such that someone who has the choice of both TCP (and/or UDP) and SCTP ports for the application would choose SCTP?”
Are we changing the SCTP application procedures not to include this question?  Also, there is an entire section in the document on DCCP, should we at least have a small section on SCTP as well?

Everywhere it says “as described in Section x.x”  can we add “of this document”?  There are some places that another RFC is mentioned very close in proximity of the document and it may be just slightly confusing as to what document the section we are referring to is in.

On page 7 there is mention of “getservbyname”  and after is has ( ) with nothing in it...

On page 9 there is the first mention of first come first serve without the reference to RFC 5226.  The reference does appear later in the document but wasn’t sure if it should also be here.

On page 11, section 6, under “Reserved”.  It says:

    Reserved port numbers are not available for regular assignment; they are “assigned to IANA” for special purposes.

I think we should add “or other reasons”  or something like that because it may not necessarily be for special purposes....

On Page 12, section 7.1 we introduce IANA “Expert Review” team.  Should there be a reference to RFC 5226 here?  Also, we never really define what the expert review team is, should we do that here? Maybe just a few sentences?

On page 16, section 8, the last sentence of the first paragraph seems out of place “Revocation is an additional process, initiated by IANA”.  In my copy the it says “as” it should be an “an”.  Perhaps add something like “The revocation process will be discussed later in this document” or in section x.

Page 17, section 8.1 some of the information bits say “This is REQUIRED”, matching the summary of information on page 16.  Some do not say it.  I think this should be consistent, adding either This is REQUIRED or This is OPTIONAL to the descriptions of each information piece.

Do we also want to say what information will be publically listed in the service name and ports registry?  Or we can leave that to be put on the online template (application form).

Page 22,  section 8.6 do we want to mention anything about mergers/acquisitions or are we leaving that up to internal IANA policy on how to deal with the changes?

Page 26, sections 10.3.1 says  “...but SHOULD seek expert review if a request asks for more than five Service Codes.” Then in section 10.3.2 it says “The assignment of multiple service codes to the same DCCP port is allowed but subject to expert review”..I think this should be the same for consistency.  Thoughts?








Specific Nits


On 12/10/10 2:02 AM, "Lars Eggert" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi,

On 2010-12-10, at 3:33, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> I’ve just read through version 09 and the diff Lars sent around.  Before I send in final comments, is the diff found at file:///Users/michelle/Documents/Microsoft%20User%20Data/Saved%20Attachments/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-from--09.diff.html the most up-to-date with all updates to date?

that URL is to a local file...

I'm attaching the diff and current version below.

Lars