Re: [port-srv-reg] Updating the draft with WGLC comments

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Magnus,

I looked at the IANA site a bit further. It seems that:

Allocation is the term used when a block of some resource is handed to 
an entity for further, fine-grained assignment (e.g., IP addresses).

Assignment is the term used when an individual resource is registered 
for an entity's exclusive use.

A Registry is the term for the table where assignments are indicated.

Registration applications would then be "Assignment Applications" or 
"Assignment Requests".

I propose using these terms to be consistent (and explaining them).

If anyone objects, please let me know ASAP....

Joe

On 11/24/2010 6:59 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Joe Touch skrev 2010-11-23 18:07:
>> Just tell me what the preferred phrase is, and I can do a pass.
>
> Thanks Joe,
>
> I have proposed that we use Allocation as it appears to be slightly more
> matching from an english language point of view than Assign. However,
> Michelle had a preference for Assign. Frankly I don't think it matters,
> as long as we use only one of the terms.
>
> When it comes to registration: We could call it "Allocation Request" and
> remove registration completely.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On 11/23/2010 6:40 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think these changes are fine. That still leaves the changes regarding
>>> the usage of allocation vs assign and register. Is anyone willing to
>>> take this on. I would love, however, my son has been sick (just a cold)
>>> but it has resulted in me missing a number of work hours making it
>>> difficult for me to keep up with things. So I would love if someone was
>>> willing to do this pass.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>> Joe Touch skrev 2010-11-22 20:04:
>>>> PS - attached is a diff of the two XML files, which may make the changes
>>>> more clear.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2010 11:01 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> See attached as a way to address the concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, I clarified that these are NOT binding (many times), and
>>>>> changed the word to "strives" (i.e., implying a goal), rather than
>>>>> indicating it as a hard rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if it answers the mail, or if I can help adjust further.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2010 11:46 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>>>>> Joe Touch skrev 2010-11-18 01:45:
>>>>>>> Hi, Magnus,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The feedback from Paul suggests it would be useful to update Sec 7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despite the explicit warning - already in the doc - that these
>>>>>>> principles are NOT binding, it might be useful to discuss the issue of
>>>>>>> whether separate ports should be allocated for requests for new
>>>>>>> protocols.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e., http vs https is currently legacy. We already expect that new
>>>>>>> requests for nonsecure legacy services could result in a new, secure
>>>>>>> port.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is whether a brand new service should be allocated separate
>>>>>>> ports for secure and nonsecure variants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The document discusses this point as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all versions
>>>>>>> of a service (e.g., running the service with or without a security
>>>>>>> mechanism, or for updated variants of a service)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> - Further,
>>>>>>> previous separation of protocol variants based on security
>>>>>>> capabilities (e.g., HTTP on TCP port 80 vs. HTTPS on TCP port 443) is
>>>>>>> not recommended for new protocols, because all new protocols should
>>>>>>> be security-capable and capable of negotiating the use of security
>>>>>>> in-band.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the TLS summary
>>>>>>> for:
>>>>>>> Mike D'Errico
>>>>>>> Nico Williams
>>>>>>> against:
>>>>>>> Paul Hoffman
>>>>>>> Marsh Ray - really just wants default to secure
>>>>>>> Richard Hartman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some just wanted security all the time:
>>>>>>> Geoffry Keating
>>>>>>> Mike D'Errico
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't see that they came to consensus on this issue. We can easily
>>>>>>> omit the security text altogether from this text if preferred, and let
>>>>>>> the TLS community make a final BCP recommendation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, despite their status as security experts, I find their logic
>>>>>>> disturbing. Port numbers themselves have no inherent security, so
>>>>>>> ultimately only the application can require a service to be secure
>>>>>>> anyway. Using port number blocking to assume security is laughable at
>>>>>>> best, so I stand by the current text.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO we already have enough wiggle words that this section isn't binding
>>>>>>> anyway. IMO, let the TLS folk create a BCP to the contrary, at which
>>>>>>> point some of us (me at least) will write a doc explaining why port
>>>>>>> numbers aren't security anyway ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My view is that there seem to be no real security benefit from running
>>>>>> separate ports generally. One anyway has to live with the downgrade
>>>>>> attacks etc. Thus I think port space preservation is still the main goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts? Leave it? Take it out because a non-consensus subset
>>>>>>> disagrees?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would do some minor tweaks, at least to the following sentence:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all versions
>>>>>> of a service (e.g., running the service with or without a security
>>>>>> mechanism, or for updated variants of a service)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People interpret the "will allocate only" very strict. I think we can
>>>>>> reword this to be one degree less strict. like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IANA will with extremely few exceptions allocate only one assigned port
>>>>>> number for all versions of a service (e.g., running the service with or
>>>>>> without a security mechanism, or for updated variants of a service)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Magnus Westerlund
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Ericsson AB | Phone [phone]
>>>>>> Färögatan 6 | Mobile [phone]
>>>>>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>