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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Catching up, was this ever addressed?

My cycles for this doc this month have expired; can anyone else address 
these if needed?

Joe

On 10/28/2010 5:52 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am clearing backlog i my TSVWG mail folder. I found these review
> comments. My question to the rest of the people. Has anyone addressed them?
>
> No one appears to have responded to it, which make me think we can have
> missed them.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
> -------- Ursprungligt meddelande --------
> Ämne: Re: [DNSOP] New version of document for review
> Datum: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 03:38:12 +0100
> Från: Doug Barton<[e-mail]>
> Till: Michelle Cotton<[e-mail]>
> Kopia: [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>rg>,	[e-mail]<[e-mail]>
>
> On 01/15/10 08:16, Michelle Cotton wrote:
>> Attn: TSVWG Working Group, DNSOPS Working Group and APPS AREA Working Group
>>
>> There is a new version of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
>> Procedures for the Management
>> of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry document:
>>
>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04.txt
>>
>> Please review and send comments.  Your feedback is much appreciated.
>
> I'm writing to provide both review and support of this draft. Before I
> do however it's probably useful for me to make some explicit statements,
> some of the "should go without saying" variety and some to provide
> context for my comments.
>
> I was the General Manager of the IANA from late 2003 through mid 2005.
> In that capacity I was proud to manage Michelle as one of my employees.
> One of my responsibilities was to oversee the port number allocation
> process, including occasionally making the final decisions on these
> assignments myself. Other than her public messages regarding these
> drafts I have had no communication from Michelle or anyone else from
> ICANN regarding this topic. Other than this message today I've not
> communicated with them about it. (IOW, ETINC.) I also have experience
> with port numbers from the operating system implementer's perspective as
> part of a large group of people who have "commit privileges" to the
> FreeBSD code base.
>
> With all that out of the way, I would like to commend Michelle and the
> other authors on this much needed piece of work. It is clear, well
> written, and covers the topic very well. I know that I would very much
> like to have had such a clear set of guidelines to operate under while I
> was making these decisions. I do have some feedback, none of which I
> consider to be show-stopper issues. If the draft were to progress in its
> current condition I would be supportive.
>
> I also think it is important to move this draft forward sooner rather
> than later since it will allow us to start using, and encouraging the
> use of SRV in a much more meaningful way.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
> * 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.
> * 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).
> * 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.
> * Section 7.2 mentions several suggestions to designers for reducing the
> number of port numbers that they need for an application. I think it
> would be useful to add 2 explicit suggestions to that list, one is the
> idea of a "master" application with one Registered port number that can
> coordinate communications between the various components of more
> complicated applications without requiring each element of the
> application to have its own assigned port number. The other suggestion I
> think should be made explicitly in the document is the use of multicast
> DNS to avoid port number assignments altogether.
>
> 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. You mention this issue briefly in 7.2, and in
> Section 9 (Security Considerations) you include the text that I wrote in
> number 2 of "PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING" on the
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers page, both of which I think
> are good things to include. However I believe that it would be useful to
> have the whole concept described in more detail in 7.2. In my
> communication with port number applicants this issue came up over and
> over again, and was either the primary or sole consideration in filing
> the application in the first place; resulting in more than one
> otherwise-spurious application. I won't quibble if my opinion on the
> importance of this topic isn't shared by others, but I felt it was
> important to mention it.
>
> I hope that these comments are helpful, and I apologize for not offering
> them sooner.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg