Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for working group feedback on draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020)

Joseph Touch <> Wed, 19 February 2020 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04295120836 for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:24:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 impKLN54wKzu for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:24:27 -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 3625F12006E for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:24:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=VaTyPZ+bcasbpOd+F7Aoxxh9oGzYkKEqUSBVEDKPn4c=; b=3yvX1wbPNDN1S8qJzfP1lbzSD XoNsP2czVZHPMXhJ2zBnJdywxfmVsLLiBpKTvKhqVThbUYG0+QnCTrERN3Rmwide7/p+Vdt6xfZu5 ymiW6fanppLHWZ0mB3oC71rkMFLJp5/HH0s5nAxQqlgF07HMIkZLvMhwG+KYqJkIIfhtWFClB+xkA QxE+bxPQWJlT05HgbbI17KP+rRN/yH9rkjVVVQGRVe5vW8OGnSk1HEbjP62m2Df1tmAJxUhOPh8Vy HI9CAgD+hDW3JVp587U2HShenNWqklw2Kbk/bR4z9eIIVEY2rDr2oe0eHK5R0ZZA5rdxtuwZe98JM FOWuzrmWA==;
Received: from ([]:51099 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1j4FyH-003VkN-RP; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:24:26 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_606392CC-8C9A-496A-8F7A-C16D370066C6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:24:20 -0800
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <>, "" <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
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] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for working group feedback on draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020)
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:24:29 -0000

Cutting to the key points, hopefully to move forward:

I don’t think there’s any value in this doc trying to define a process that’s already defined in RFC 6335. It should have exactly one line of text and a changed title: 

	"Reassignment of Standards-Track Ports to the IESG"

The IESG is hereby indicating to the community its intent to transfer assignment of ports assigned to standards-track protocols and to parties that are no longer reachable, as determined by IANA and the IAB, and this Internet-Draft is intended to expire at the end of that process.

Everything else steps on RFC 6335 in one way or another, is unnecessary, and should be removed.

> ...
> [MK2] I thought I replied to all you mails. I noted this point. However, I believe if we do any action here, we should also go for a clean-up in order to detect outdated contact information and potentially not-used ports, as I already said several times. I'm happy to get more input from others on this point! 

The sentence I provided above is the most that is needed and allows for reassignment of “orphan” ports.

“Not used” ports is a completely different issue with a MUCH higher bar  for deassignment- it requires confirmation of the port not being used even in legacy systems in order to deassign. That’s a dangerous area to try to “clean up” in the ports and should be avoided unless absolutely critical on a per-case basis.

One final point:
> [MK2] I didn't say that an RFC is require, I was just saying that my expectation is that most new assignmenst in the system range will have the IEFT as assignee and contact (and that is something independent of the assignment procedure).

That’s simply incorrect. Right now, nearly NO new assignments will be made in the system range as per RFC 7605 anyway.