Re: [tsvwg] Request for feedback on 3GPP investigation on dynamic Port handling

Joseph Touch <> Thu, 10 December 2020 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209AA3A09E0 for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:03:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53l_gVwzSEhD for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B83093A09DF for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:03:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GllYYC/G2a9xJ6QtY3q95ocnbXFBlzpdw/d5+utvrcw=; b=czN4uhuCEAkU0JY0fFexC79WF F+vfyOUk4Hyy3pZoxm+KHJE0RP2yQlRPwAgfwdr9WPz3UjzhXhvbuQBJ9DOgIs40P7g9IQB+6ubgL 0DIePj3Vj25kEpNJk7QUSeWxncd+YBJPtN7G1eKkM1iIR4gnuz2Qkmv+2NK7CD8XwVceRvF4VMw0P KY9sxovPTdAJ2ZVJ29oJHdaEFsc8DEzNvmW78iVFi/OkuhzPn0wvCsnQzN86vx60N83LzLwLm56Br w6QcwBdXNQ6mvsVGa3H17m+e4etQgzlPqfZuANQAe77pyMie2oWwgkH1kekDVJ9tivBDHDYqnm5Rt EZ8fZRbCA==;
Received: from ([]:60004 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1knAMW-002iVw-3c; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 20:03:20 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 17:03:15 -0800
Cc: "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Request for feedback on 3GPP investigation on dynamic Port handling
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 01:03:22 -0000

> On Dec 9, 2020, at 12:27 AM, Magnus Westerlund <> wrote:
> As this is the WG that has defined the Transport Port number registration rules
> (RFC6335),

Also RFC7605, which applies here as well.

> I think you can both have interest and maybe help provide feedback. 

FWIW, the experts team has already had extensive discussions with 3GPP and previous transport ADs on this issue.

To my knowledge, 3GPP is not applying via IETF process.

> 3GPP CT4 WG is working towards defining a solution for how to handle service
> discovery of 3GPP network internal services. This is currently in the first
> stage where they are investigating options that will lead up to an choice for a
> solution to specify. 
> So the current draft of their technical report can be retrived here (MS Word):

I’d just note that much of the information in that doc is not accurate. At a minimum, it would be useful for others here to note that 3GPP is not the only party who has requested either a “block” of ports or an ongoing stream of requests. In all previous cases, the experts team has recommended - as here - that the applicant figure out how to run their services on one port. Although any individual request may appear to be inconsequential give the current rate of assignments, if we set a precedent here, we have to afford others the same opportunity.

Joe (in case others don’t know, I’ve been participating on that review team since 2007)

> So I am happy to gather together the feedback we have. I plan to do this in time
> for their meeting starting the 25th of January. You may also send it directly to
> CT4 mailing list: 3GPP_TSG_CT_WG4@LIST.ETSI.ORG
> Cheers
> Magnus