Re: [sidr] draft-sidr-rpki-rtr

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Sat, 13 August 2011 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A051A21F8770 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.241
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.242, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CWQBb4JyoCUu for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A678821F874C for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=1282; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313222507; x=1314432107; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IG5zRiAovk0W1nL2CKWaTHFVW5J1ESvKomPdgGYRX5Q=; b=Y5cvqRpnSBT8uwGgmBPuofn1bE6ZxiOLuWSOGMvAWAhDiPu82/2ApFSi Iu5grOhlGoff8MOs3Dpji2rUeezMrjkCgmF5bWuOXO5PjkJUwEgRDj/kH Iq6cU5/nj14tjO+egvSvY7jimiDLpETHK6Hq62Vuza4Dyhqj364rkAIs9 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEGAMYuRk6Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABBmHCPCHeBQAEBAQEDEgECASJAEQsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQEeokQBgyAPAZsdhkcEkxKQdg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,366,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="50315824"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2011 08:01:45 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7D81j5l026076 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:01:45 GMT
Received: from stbryant-mac2.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id p7D81g0k018120; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:01:44 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4E462F65.2020905@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:01:41 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sidr@ietf.org
References: <4DAF44AC.8060408@isi.edu><E3076C4C-F27C-40A8-A033-2EBB8C39A3D2@cisco.com><4DAF796C.7010807@isi.edu><BANLkTi=Oc-fEKOYCRQqM97wPxSSXjrdTRw@mail.gmail.com><409BDC5C-FE86-444A-BC0D-6DA00E7BF0F3@isi.edu><BANLkTikLi2p7UipJ!TRSQqVOL6GkLn=j9iA@mail.gmail.com><F0FABE61-FC1D-45ED-A21D-ED7A1228A997@isi.edu><01eb01cc0325$6e4fd260$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net><4DB592B3.3090805@isi.edu><033e01cc05a8$0a82f160$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net><4DB9A456.3060709@isi.edu><BANLkTikg18FV5H0bOdOfWMzpTcm_B__EVQ@mail.gmail.com><017b01cc13ff$0cb6da40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net><BANLkTink82qvhge6rRhqt5+h-2mEkKBMhA@mail.gmail.com><m21uzwr3tw.wl%randy@psg.com> <BANLkTimPnMfE1ii=6uwAckoFY0yUU=w43g@mail.gmail.com> <011701cc58d4$fbbd4ce0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4E455B3A.7030005@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4E455B3A.7030005@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [sidr] draft-sidr-rpki-rtr
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:01:08 -0000

On 12/08/2011 17:56, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2011 2:48 AM, t.petch wrote:
>> I notice that there is no mention of which range the port number 
>> should be from,
>> in section 12.
>>
>> This has been a hot topic with TSVWG, so if guidance can be given - 
>> eg we do not
>> care - then that could forestall later debate.
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
> The general issue of the difference in the "system" (privileged) and 
> "user" (non-privileged) ports has been a topic on TSVWG, but not 
> recently and not in this specific context AFAICT. There is a move 
> afoot for many years to deprecate the difference between the ranges, 
> but it doesn't appear to be going anywhere quickly.
>
> If you can provide a pointer otherwise, let me know.
>
> There have been very few recent assignments to the system range, 
> notably netconf over ssh this past year.
>
> IMO, this does belong in the system range, but it's your decision.
>
> Joe 

Yes from looking at the registry text on the two ranges this looks like 
it needs to be from the "well known port range" = 0..1023 where BGP 
itself is. I suggest that you put in a request for an allocation in that 
range and leave it to the transport area reviewers to tell us that we 
are wrong (and why).

Stewart