[port-srv-reg] final updates - ports doc

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Update to the updates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- assigned vs registered

5226 is IANA Considerations, explains what these terms mean.

Mark:

Will give us text & check for consistency throughout the doc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- need to specify transports for service names

Lars:

This focuses on how to ask for a service name.

Ask for just a service name. The entry will be:
	banana TCP
	banana UDP

Olafur's doc will indicate how to use this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- who gets to add transports to a service that exists?

Draft text:

IANA will reserve updates that add transports to existing services with
priority to the owner of the existing registrations, with exceptions
coordinated with the IESG.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- WKS needs to be addressed

Olafur:

Remove WKS text from our docs. Point to Olafur's doc, which closes other
registries as a result.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- the online tables may need to support "sort on multiple fields"

IANA action item TBD. Does not affect doc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Alfred's observation that, "looking for "transport"/"protocol", I
found that the draft repeatedly uses "protocol number[s]" or even
"address[es]" where it should say "port number[s]"

Olafur:

Will check for consistency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- the doc should focus on user interfaces to IANA actions

Current intro/abstract are OK. No changes to doc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Gorry's input that: 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. Also Section 10.3.2 since this explains
>>> how ports and SC interact and how you can manage without port allocations
>>> To be added (AFAICT, it wasn't yet)

Gorry:

To fix as request. Check also the appendix for DCCP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Gorry's input that: 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].
>>> To be added.

Gorry:

To fix as requested. Check also the appendix for DCCP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Gorry's input that: see 10.3.2: IANA MUST NOT allocate a single
>>> Service Code value to more than one DCCP server port. // revise to MUST
>>> NOT allocate more than one port to a single service code value; multiple
>>> SC per port is allowed, subject to expert review.
>>> To be added.

Gorry:

To fix as requested. Check also the appendix for DCCP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Gorry's input that: updates RFC 5595, since the latter states where
>>> ports and service codes are registered
>>> To be added.

Gorry:

To fix as requested. Check also the appendix for DCCP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Gorry's input that we fix the acknowledgements (ref to Tom - who?)
>>>>> GORRY - can you clarify?

Gorry:

To fix as requested. Check also the appendix for DCCP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> [ P.S. The note I sent simply said the "ack" to Tom Phelan isn't
>> really the full story. Tom pointed to the text in section 6 of
>> draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-04.
>> This ID was edited by me, with some inputs from Eddie Kohler and
>> some from Tom. I removed this text from the DCCP RFC, when it was
>> sent to help make this draft. That's all.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- point about multiple names that use the same port number

Two cases:

	www/http = synonyms
	stun/turn = in-band negotiation

Lars:

Will update text as needed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>> My suggestion would be to add a section to that draft grandfathering 
>>>>> ports 465, 993, 2000 and a few more (adding as much negative verbiage as 
>>>>> seems wise; I don't think the exact amount makes and difference at all).
>>>>> IIRC port 2000 can be grandfathered a half-dozen times.

This document does not document protocols no longer used.

No changes to the doc for this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> There are two separate issues:
> 
> - previous assignments that don't follow the proposed recommendations
> 	- as noted, there's no goal to fix that

Already note we're leaving existing stuff alone.

No changes to the doc for this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> - 'squatting', or use of ports without registering through IANA
> 	- IMO, these should not be ignored, but clearly cannot be
> 	treated as equivalent to 'self assigned'
> 
> 	i.e., IMO, IANA should list these as "unauthorized use",
> 	as a service to the community to help those using those
> 	ports as assigned.

Out of scope for this doc.

No changes to the doc for this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- email to registrants whose entries will be modified

Stuart:

Will send/review text.

No changes to the doc for this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- table boilerplate

Michelle:

Will send draft text.

No changes to the doc for this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- names for table entries to coordinate with Olafur's tables

Joe:

Will clarify list of table entries and ensure they are described
completely in the current doc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- updates for new transport protocols

Lars:

Will add text for how new transports are handled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- how you get a port number vs ask for a port number

Lars:

Clarify how you either leave this open in the request or ask for a
number. (how you state a preference)

- sec 7.3 / need to add IESG approval to IETF approval for system ports

Michelle:

To update text.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- end.