Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt>(InternetAssigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for theManagementof the Service Name and Transport Protocol PortNumberRegistry) to BCP

Sorry Tom - I should have phrased what I said more carefully. I meant to scope my comments to user ports that were not going through IETF process. 

On Feb 16, 2011, at 4:22 AM, t.petch wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "t.petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com>
> To: "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com>; "Christian Huitema"
> <huitema@microsoft.com>
> Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>; <tsvwg@ietf.org>; "IESG IESG"
> <iesg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt>(InternetAssigned
> Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for theManagementof the Service Name and
> Transport Protocol PortNumberRegistry) to BCP
> 
> 
>> 
>> ---- Original Message -----
>> From: "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com>
>> To: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@microsoft.com>
>> Cc: <tsvwg@ietf.org>; "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>; "Chris Benson"
>> <cbenson@adax.com>; "IESG IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; "Sam Hartman"
>> <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>; "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:31 AM
>>> 
>>> I've been thinking more about this thread and my concerns about this draft.
> I
>> was originally looking for the draft to have advice for the expert review team
>> that gave them guidance on what the IETF thought was all right to approve or
> not
>> approve. It's become clear that this draft does not have that advice and is
> not
>> likely to get it in the very short term. This BCP will empower the expert
>> reviewer to reject or approve just about any request. Appeals are not the best
>> way to balance putting that power because they are incredibly corrosive and
> time
>> consuming to everyone involved. I think this thread somewhat suggests an
>> alternative approach for a check and balance.
>>> 
>> 
> Cullen
> 
> My understanding of this draft is that Expert Review only applies when "IETF
> Review" or "IESG Approval" does not apply, so a duly approved Standards
> Track RFC trumps all Experts.
> 
> I proposed text on 2nd February to make this clearer, and understand that this
> change was accepted.
> 
> Where the request is not via "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval", then I have
> less concern as to what the Expert may or may not allow.
> 
> My  text is
> 
> "For most IETF protocols, ports in the User Ports range will be assigned under
> the "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226] and no further
> documentation is required.
> 
> Where these procedures do not apply, then the requester must
> input the documentation to  the "Expert Review"
> procedure
>         [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert review the
>         request to determine whether to grant the assignment.  The
>        submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number in
>         the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given application."
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
>>> What do people think of the idea of: for all ports requests, the request and
>> the expert reviewer reposes including reason for accepting or rejecting them
>> need to be posted to a public email list. This seems like a simple way to help
>> mitigate this issue and it will help educate people writing a port request to
>> know what types of issues they need to address and what would be appropriate
> or
>> not.
>>> 
>>> Pros & cons of this idea?
>>> 
>>> On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I don't see that "public identity" (of expert reviewers) is required for
>> "interactive discussion".
>>>>> Or would anonymous interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?
>>>> 
>>>> Public identity is required for reviewer accountability. It is easy to
>> imagine how withholding registration of some required numbers may delay a
>> competitor's products. The best protection against shade is sunlight.
>>>> 
>>>> -- Christian Huitema
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 