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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

I don't think they were addressed.

Some comments below:

On 10/28/2010 5:52 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> I've attached a diff with some mostly minor edits. Most of them are
> simple English language nits such as:
> 1. Comma reduction (a topic which I'm very sensitive to since it's one
> of my major faults when writing)
> 2. Capitalizing the first letter of bullet points

The RFC-Editor process will catch what needs to be corrected on these 
points.

> I've also included some textual changes which I hope improve and/or
> clarify the text. In all cases the authors are free to adopt or deny my
> suggestions as they see fit.
>
> More substantive issues, in more or less increasing order of importance.
> * In Section 3 I think the readability would improve by switching the
> first and second paragraphs.

Disagree.

> * In Section 7.2, paragraph 7, I think the change to "IANA converting
> the reservation" makes the desired outcome (that designers not use the
> port without IANA authorizing the change) more clear.

Agree - right now, the wording implies that the application is the one 
asking IANA for the change ;-(

> * 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).

That might be useful to mention in the application, but it's not clear 
that this belongs in this doc (and certainly not at a SHOULD level).

> * 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.

RFC 1340 introduces the term "registered" ports, and explains the 
differences in the ranges.

> * Section 7.2 mentions several suggestions to designers for reducing the
> number of port numbers that they need for an application.

7.2 describes IANA actions that conserve port numbers.

Suggestions for ways users can comply are out of scope for this doc. 
(and if this ever gets finished, they'd be in the other doc on port use 
I'm writing, which has a history on the port number space and is why I 
know about RFC1340 above).

> My final area of concern is the idea people have that without an
> assigned port number from IANA that no firewall administrators will
> allow their traffic.

This is out of scope for this doc as well; it belongs in the other doc.

Joe