IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09: How we have resolved WG last call comments

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 02 December 2010 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D5B28C15C for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:44:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rir16v99LQwt for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00F728C154 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:44:50 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArEEABdc90yQ/khLgWdsb2JhbACDT59TFQEBFiIip2KKPZBmgSGDM3MEimY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,289,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="14426028"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2010 16:46:06 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-64.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-103-64.cisco.com [10.61.103.64]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB2Gk5OF030482; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:46:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4CF7CD5B.3040903@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:46:19 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: George Neville-Neil <gnn@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09: How we have resolved WG last call comments
References: <4CF79432.8070508@ericsson.com> <4CF796A9.9070608@cisco.com> <7A4B44A1-8A53-4819-82A2-5583D52218B4@nokia.com> <4CF7A7CF.50006@cisco.com> <38C6B891-838A-4124-9061-28C51E354DCB@nokia.com> <A6DF5386-C1DA-4A1A-B381-A8B58EFBD26C@freebsd.org> <p0624081cc91d6c95c104@[10.20.30.150]> <9FD12A39-EEFE-4F48-A80E-110FFCF87993@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <9FD12A39-EEFE-4F48-A80E-110FFCF87993@freebsd.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Dec 2010 16:44:52 -0000

Thanks for pointing this out.  It nails another reason why we should do
away with the distinction: this is a host implementation issue.  The
IETF doesn't touch host implementations.  Why should IANA?  You guys
over in FreeBSD land want to maintain the restriction?  Fine.  That's
your implementation.  But let's not knit IANA policy around it.

On 12/2/10 4:49 PM, George Neville-Neil wrote:
> Perhaps, but, I don't think that the proposals I've read thus far, and I admit to just
> having joined and re-read the posted threads, would get very far in the community.
>
> Best,
> George
>
>

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status