[port-srv-reg] Fwd: Reminder: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 - 26th November 2010
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 23 November 2010 07:28 UTC
Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 33D3828C0E6 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:28:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091,
BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UjnPxaDk5UbD for
<port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DFB28C162 for
<port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com
[172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP
id oAN7ThVh001940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
verify=NO) for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:29:43 +0200
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.4 at fit.nokia.com
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-31-805050816;
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:29:39 +0200
References: <p06240827c9108fb7d7f0@[10.20.30.150]>
To: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
Message-Id: <BF2AAA6C-23C5-4F0B-A27E-D4A2AE930983@nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6
(mail.fit.nokia.com); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:29:40 +0200 (EET)
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Reminder: WGLC Announcement for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 - 26th November 2010
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of updates to service name and transport protocol port
registry <port-srv-reg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>,
<mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/port-srv-reg>
List-Post: <mailto:port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>,
<mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 07:28:48 -0000
Begin forwarded message: > From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> > Date: November 23, 2010 0:14:26 GMT+02:00 > To: tsvwg WG <tsvwg@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Reminder: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 - 26th November 2010 > > In general, this document seems fairly worthwhile. I have a two reservations, however: > > - There is no justification for retaining the differentiation between System Ports and User Ports. Given the wide disparity in assignment rates, I would have thought that this would be a good time to say "there is no longer a difference". The text in 8.1 doesn't explain the difference in a way I could discern. At a minimum, this needs to be covered in much more detail in sections 7.1 and 7.2. > > - Two of the references seem ill-advised for a long-lived RFC: > [SYSFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application > for System (Well Known) Port Number", > http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl. > > [USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application > for User (Registered) Port Number", > http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl. > For years, URI-aware IETF participants have been trying to get IANA to not instantiate URIs that hard-code the source and type of content in public URLs. The above two URLs force IANA to keep using an Apache-based directory structure, and to keep using Perl scripts, for the life of this RFC. It would be far better if IANA would start following Web best practices before this document is published as an RFC and use more universal local parts in these URLs. > > On a process note, am I really the only person doing a WG LC review of this document? I'm not really even a WG member... > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium