Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Thu, 20 May 2021 17:10 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B93E3A1F1E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLB5bTq3hx8B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12c.google.com (mail-il1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 856743A1F13 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id m1so14169847ilg.10 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SBSRndGykq/QlIytGVkPb0ZEYCtwTaETGsuzO944Cy8=; b=Q6+IMNpUfc0yH+f6g+K2M9G2swCK8nV1UjvBu9w1AdvMkQ1Z/Gj/GjyHFIkz6iPGDH zyEV7UsGsJM9Xzk+5JWFf0UzJuWMzOn+yYzIdJ/YMoiVOyxez4WM6hQJ29+xnPII+hzk wRagV72knhOn60Xm8S/GwJWEKVSoAD1FsD2kOo9aCUi6KxA70o+9A0qtPGerYeQRDps3 msi97JIR/yO9W3rCgQYJhEK46NzXd6sAm50DRrtsO+kN/7ovyU0d+XG5UuqulknRv5Il 8YuZIc5y+/gC+r7lxwXImu/olLmxDfai9YbaATrxNVQH0HZUEo/PYbeIzu1kZYUZMo6p jJvg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SBSRndGykq/QlIytGVkPb0ZEYCtwTaETGsuzO944Cy8=; b=koQqxdMAVtc3P7fOogimZcomWZ9viybaaF8rzTrH8yK/2VMZTBkRzjNY6NtY9zIcqt Ske7IbYUkF+2SmvX1tGIrBwFS/4yYkvGh/3cAKF44uFbG2QFEdXSt8bs8a8D2TFWpGM1 Se//MUggRv7Yg/9I/tJH486Y+aj8F5J5GS4azGEQokAb+LG+ofvSX2/LnamJfxiLukkd IZ+k34BP6mHy2MG2cFB6vrm1PXuGcYgDkz6CZAzMsf534Ze5kDzfSQJYkNjJul1g+icq DUGSN76nzmouFo4MtEMOWlNmIgjGq+gOJpChTWYEaxFvSXZLrcXIdUrkZsz9XG/uyRt2 ck7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vGG7T5SS0sUupLCp4iIET9mqhhhvT8o3ZFLdpzx2vP2NTTT6s mhCgPbYr6wnTp99wP4EkOoIxciLh5D9OZ3bCiuI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzV7tWQzjHpKiR0wPNU5TC0veTXEainhD0C2TxZMSJYAJ7fQBQMrteFwfAZtq1T37PJNspxSLUfONNlfxREcao=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c24b:: with SMTP id k11mr5574431ilo.303.1621530644525; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxRcxJ7HZSG2gk75+sA1PRWjkQqQT0F7+1EsG8gLOy__yA@mail.gmail.com> <4E4C4480-631E-4AA9-89F7-B173A57C0625@strayalpha.com> <CAM4esxSQtnuoBZHXnR1q77eKhpUb5-aFhZP_mKeKgqf6KJ0MtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9A110E58-F531-4DCC-AFDB-0216EE706FB6@ericsson.com> <CAKKJt-dG0aF2DFUJ3e9k63GOQMocbvxGS5xNW7cnvW-Mn+bYLQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-dG0aF2DFUJ3e9k63GOQMocbvxGS5xNW7cnvW-Mn+bYLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 10:10:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQKNr92Ta5kc_Dn40tbtBa1o8xAnSJn8oN2sNOh6OnLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Joseph Touch via IANA-Port-Experts <iana-port-experts@icann.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f384105c2c606f2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/CjbS-0EgDSIoOoih-PQdsnTR6cU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 17:10:52 -0000
Thanks, changes applies. On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:46 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF < spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Martin, > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:05 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind= > 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> >> >> this generally looks good to me and keeping it short is probably the >> right approach. I believe one of their meta-concern is still that it is >> maybe not fully clear to them when they should ask for a port. Also I think >> if they specify any new services that could be used internet-wide, we >> actually want them to come to us. >> >> >> >> Maybe a tiny little tweak could help: >> >> >> >> OLD >> >> A application justified by a particular use case will be evaluated in >> accordance with IETF and IANA policy, just like any other. >> >> >> >> NEW >> >> A application justified by a particular use case, especially if that use >> case is deployed over the open Internet, should be registered with IANA >> and will be evaluated in accordance with IETF and IANA policy, just like >> any other request. >> >> >> >> Not sure if that is too much or helps at all but wanted to propose it for >> your consideration. >> > > I think this helps. > > There are certainly 3GPP participants who know what the "IETF and IANA > policy" for port assignments is, but for other participants who don't know > yet, and might be tempted to request a port assignment in the future, you > might want to include a reference to where you think people can find the > relevant policy. > > Do The RIght Thing, of course. > > Best, > > Spencer > > >> Mirja >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Martin Duke < >> martin.h.duke@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Thursday, 20. May 2021 at 01:47 >> *To: *Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> >> *Cc: *Joseph Touch via IANA-Port-Experts <iana-port-experts@icann.org>, >> tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests >> >> >> >> OK, here's what I have: >> >> >> >> Thank you for your correspondence about port allocation. In your latest >> message you write: >> >> >> >> “However, besides the assignment of transport protocol port(s) that could >> be >> >> requested by 3GPP for the deployment of specific service discovery >> >> mechanism(s), it is also the 3GPP understanding that this statement cannot >> >> prohibit 3GPP to request in the future a port assignment for a new service >> >> application for which none of the port assignment alternatives would be >> >> applicable.” >> >> >> >> Your understanding is correct. Our previous statements on this subject >> are intended to reduce port requests with a low chance of approval, but no >> party is ever prohibited from requesting a port assignment. A application >> justified by a particular use case will be evaluated in accordance with >> IETF and IANA policy, just like any other. >> >> >> >> *** >> >> anything to add, or is that good enough? >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 8:08 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, Martin, >> >> >> >> The only response I can imagine would be: >> >> >> >> “Port assignments are assigned as per RFC6335 and RCC7605. No party is >> ever directly prohibited from applying for port assignments. Those terms >> are set by the IETF and IANA, and are updated by IETF consensus; they are >> not subject to negotiation.” >> >> >> >> I.e., although what they state is true, it is not true by some sort of >> agreement between the IETF and 3GPP. >> >> >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> On May 18, 2021, at 10:48 AM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello TSVWG and port experts, >> >> >> >> We got this 3GPP Liaison Statement last month: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1726/ >> >> >> >> The key paragraphs are: >> >> 3GPP understands that it could be possible to assign to 3GPP a port per >> >> transport protocol (UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP) that will be used for service port >> >> negotiation/discovery for all the future internal interfaces defined by 3GPP, >> >> avoiding the need for a systematic IANA port assignment for interfaces used >> >> only inside the 3GPP system... >> >> ...it is also the 3GPP understanding that this statement cannot >> >> prohibit 3GPP to request in the future a port assignment for a new service >> >> application for which none of the port assignment alternatives would be >> >> applicable. >> >> They would like confirmation, IIUC, that they are not cut off from any further port assignments. >> >> Any feedback on what I should tell them in response? >> >> Your friendly AD, >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >>
- [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port re… Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Fred Baker
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Joseph Touch
- [tsvwg] Re : 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying po… lionel.morand
- Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying por… Martin Duke