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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Lars,

Some comments below...

On 12/2/2010 9:59 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
...
>>>> * In Section 8.1 (and/or perhaps elsewhere?) I think it would be useful
>>>> to suggest (perhaps at the SHOULD level?) that when appropriate the
>>>> administrative contact e-mail address should be a role account, and the
>>>> problem this is designed to mitigate (individuals sometimes leave the
>>>> company/organization that is responsible for the assignment resulting in
>>>> a dead e-mail address).
>>
>> Not discussed currently, but something that IANA themselves can make
>> clear in any form.
>
> Or we add a sentence into the current working version now, to be included whenever we issue one.

This is a doc about IANA procedure, not about best practices for those 
filling out requests. That sort of nit seems OK for IANA to include as a 
reminder, but unnecessary for this document.

>>>> * In Section 6 (and elsewhere) there does not appear to be a normative
>>>> reference for the division of port numbers into the Well Known,
>>>> Registered, and Dynamic categories.
>>
>> Still not present in that section.
>
> *Is* there even such a reference? I thought it was a historic artifact.

RFC1340

(I have a complete history of this in the other doc I've been drafting, 
if I ever get cycles to get to it...) See attached drafty draft. The 
history part is fairly complete.

--

On a separate note, the ref to the ID on portnames got dropped with the 
claim that others had proposed it. I have a history in the portnames 
doc, and the idea was never proposed AFAICT. If anyone knows of such 
other proposals along those lines, please let me know (and if claiming 
such exist is the only reason for dropping that text, in the absence of 
a specific pointer I'll ask to restore that sentence).

Joe