Re: [port-srv-reg] Who is doing the presenations in APParea and TSVWG

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

I just posted a version including Magnus' comments. Attached is a
version that further includes Gorry's below. See notes...

Joe

Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> Looks good to me,
> 
> A few comments on the slides and the draft...
> 
> Slide 1:
> - It would be good to include the draft name on the slide:
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03

Done.

> Slide 8:
> This line took me a wee moment to decipher:
> "Port only for transports requested"
> - is it better as?:
> "Port only for requested transports"

Done.

> Slide 11:
> This line doesn't seem to be the whole story:
> 
> "Service code to at most one port"
> -> This isn't a requirement as per RFC 5595 (e.g. section 4.1), although
> it is good as common practice, unless the requester knows better and
> requires expert review (as described in the draft section 10.3.2). Did
> you mean at most one port per service code?

Yes. (sorry - I wrote it backwards, using "to").
Fixed.

> =============
> 
> And a wee bit of (late) feedback on the DCCP topics in the draft:

I'll note this for the update, but some other notes as well:

> Section 10.3.1:
> - It is good to also cite RFC 5595 (you currently cite the draft) for
> service code information, since this updated RFC 4340 in many ways.

Will do.

> - We MUST note in the new draft that no registry allocations can be made
> for zero or 4294967295, and no registry allocations can be made for
> 1056964608-1073741823 (high byte ASCII "?") reserved for private use
> [19.8 of RFC 4340].

The doc just talks about coordinating tables. It doesn't repeat rules
that occur elsewhere (or at least shouldn't, and if it does they should
be removed).

> - I think we may have missed the rule that:
>   "IANA MUST NOT allocate more than one DCCP server port with a
>    single Service Code value."

see 10.3.2:

   o  IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than
      one DCCP server port.

Is this the same thing or not? If so, which wording is better? If not,
do we need both, and how can we make this more clear?

> - Does this draft also updates RFC 5595, since the latter states where
> ports and service codes are registered?

Will do.

> Section 10.3.2:
> - I think it would also be helpful to cite RFC 5595 in 10.3.2 - since
> this explains how ports and SC interact and how you can manage without
> port allocations.

Will do.

> Section 11: You didn't fix the acknowledgments:-)
> - I don't recall Tom being in the loop, what I recall was that I ripped
> the first version of text from an earlier draft of RFC 5595
> (draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-04.txt).  You could check with Tom, if you
> like;-)

Correct - we didn't fix the acks. Let's do that in the next round ;-)

Joe

> 
> Gorry
> 
> 
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> Feedback appreciated. I will be able to edit until about 0800 Monday,
>> but need to post for those online by then.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 2009, at 7:27, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm open Mon AM and can present if useful. I'll also be at TSVWG.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>> Do you have some slides prepared Joe?
>>>
>>> If you do, and you can email them to the list, I'll take a look at them
>>> tonight and give you feedback.
>>>
>>> Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]>
>>> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
>>> * Internet Architecture Board
>>> * www.stuartcheshire.org
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg