[lamps] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5273bis-08: (with COMMENT)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Gorry,

Do me a favor and look at my resposnes to Eric’ comments on 5272 & 5273 in relation to QUIC. I want to make sure it makes sense to you too.

spt

> On Sep 13, 2025, at 03:36, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 12/09/2025 20:38, Joe Mandel wrote:
>> Gorry, 
>> 
>> Thanks for the comments. We made those changes: https://github.com/lamps-wg/cmcbis/pull/126 
>> 
>> Joe
> Thanks for these updates,
> 
> Gorry
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2025, at 1:55 AM, Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5273bis-08: No Objection
>>> 
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
>>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5273bis/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Please find 3 non-blocking COMMENTS, these concern the recommendations for the
>>> use of ports:
>>> 
>>> (1) The current text says:
>>> /Client implementations MAY want to continue to allow for this to occur/
>>> - I know this is taken from a published RFC, but, for me, permitting a “wish”
>>> using an RFC2119 keyword does not say anything useful. Please consider if this
>>> MAY could be rewritten to say which port (range) this requirement refers to,
>>> and avoids saying “want”. Perhaps something like: -  “Client implementations
>>> MAY continue to use a port chosen from the Private Port range”.
>>> 
>>> (2) The current text says:
>>> /Servers SHOULD change to use the new port. /
>>> - Please could you update the text to clarify which service uses the “new port”
>>> ? Is it: TCP? HTTP/TCP? both? - I’d strongly also suggest noting the port
>>> number in the sentence with the RFC2119 keyword e.g.: A TCP server SHOULD use
>>> port  5318 assigned to the CMC service. Prior to [RFC6402], CMC did not have a
>>> registered port number and used an externally configured port from the Private
>>> Port range.
>>> 
>>> (3) I was going to raise a DISCUSS on the final comment, but I’m not sure this
>>> is critical, and I expect some rewording will clarify the port usage: It seems
>>> like the client and the server could use different ways to identify the
>>> service. I think that possibility seems like it needs more clarification.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Spasm mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> 
>