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

[Michelle Cotton <[e-mail]>]

I agree here.  The discussion has gone way beyond the original purpose of
the document.

--Michelle


On 2/17/11 7:34 AM, "Lars Eggert" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> so I'm getting confused by the flood of email. But I think there is a serious
> disconnect here in the community:
> 
> The purpose of iana-ports is to define the IANA procedures for managing the
> consolidated service-name/port-number registry. It is *not* a "handbook to the
> public on all things to know about ports assignments."
> 
> Yes, the document includes some material that is for the information of
> applicants. I think the basic idea was that we wanted to explain *why* the
> IANA procedures are the way they are. But that material is not covering
> everything, nor should (or could) it.
> 
> Especially for the assignment path via Expert Review, people seem to want us
> to add a lot of details about what principles the expert team is using, how
> they communicate with the applicant, etc.
> 
> I don't think this document is the right place for this content. I'm not even
> sure that we need any document with this content - I don't think there is any
> other IANA expert whose review process are prescribed by an RFC.
> 
> Are we all on the same page here? If yes, we should push back. (And if no, we
> should discuss what to do.)
> 
> Lars