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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Michelle Cotton wrote:

> All,

Hi Michelle,
Just some quick replies (speaking as an individual, not as an AD):

> 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?

Good question. I would like to hear the answer from people who have an 
idea (I don't :-)).

> 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.

+1.

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

This is just a programmer's convention to show that getservbyname is a 
function. So I would leave this as is.

> 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.

I think it should be.

> 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....

Ok.

> On Page 12, section 7.1 we introduce IANA “Expert Review” team. Should 
> there be a reference to RFC 5226 here?

I think so.

> Also, we never really define what the expert review team is, should we 
> do that here? Maybe just a few sentences?

Probably. Can you suggest some text?

> 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.

Sure.

> 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.

+1.

> 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).

I think the latter. We also want to let IANA have some flexibility here.

> 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?

I remember this was discussed several times, but I don't remember the 
decision. Anybody else?

> 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?

Agreed that the 2 statements should be consistent.

Regards,
Alexey