Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Lionel,

 I just submitted this for IESG review, and the 3GPP LS is addressed to the
IESG, so this Tuesday is unlikely.

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:41 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> To Fred:
>
> When a port is requested by 3GPP, the solution requiring the new port is
> described in a 3GPP normative specification, document accepted by the IANA
> policy. Obviously, if the proposed solution is of general interest for
> Internet, an RFC publication will be requested.
> And it is clear that it is not requested to be able to bypass the IANA
> policy regarding port number allocation nor to be automatic blessing for
> any request (as indicated in the liaison). I admit that it was not so clear
> in the past for some 3GPP folks.
>
> To Martin:
>
> The current proposed answer is fine for me. It is the level of feedback
> requested by 3GPP.
>
> I don't know when the final version will be available but it would be
> great if an official LS reply could be received on Tuesday next week at the
> latest. The 3GPP CT4 working group is currently in virtual meeting.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lionel
>
>
> -------- Message original --------
> De : Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>
> Date : jeu. 20 mai 2021 à 20:11
> À : Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail], tsvwg <[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests
>
> Hi, Fred,
>
> Although any sort of description is useful, we don’t require drafts for
> port assignments.
>
> They used to be required for system ports (actually, they need to be
> standards-track), but we deprecate assigning those ports anyway now.
>
> Joe
>
> > On May 20, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > From my perspective, 3GPP is forever and always empowered to ask, as is
> anyone else. However, there is no mandate requiring IANA to respond
> positively to the request. I would hope that they would file an internet
> draft proposing the new port assignment and arguing for it.
> >
> >> On May 18, 2021, at 10:48 AM, Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>