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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

thanks for the comments!

On 2010-12-3, at 17:00, t.petch wrote:
> Some possible, insubstantial corrections.
> 
> The UDP-Lite specification [RFC5237] says: "UDP-Lite
> **RFC3828 I think

Fixed (in our working copy.)

>   Furthermore, "Assigned Numbers" is now obsolete [RFC3232]
> ** I still see it as INFORMATIONAL - should we obsolete it? or do you mean that
> RFC3232 obsoleted RFC1700?

The latter. I rephrased this now as "Assigned Numbers [RFC1700] has been obsoleted [RFC3232]".

> HYPHEN  = %x2d              ; "-"
> **%x2D would be consistent with the other statements

Fixed.

> separating protocol variants based on security capabilities (e.g., HTTP on TCP
> port 80 vs. HTTPS on TCP port 443) is not recommended for new protocols
> ** NOT RECOMMENDED ??

Unsure. This is not the document to make normative statements about HTTP, I believe, especially in an example. I rephrased this as "is strongly discouraged".

> and MUST accompanied by a statement
> ** //be/ ??

Fixed.

Thanks!

KLars

> 
> Yes, I have read it:-)
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Magnus Westerlund" <[e-mail]>
> To: "tsvwg" <[e-mail]>; "Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>; "Eliot
> Lear" <[e-mail]>; "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:42 PM
> Subject: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09: How we have resolved WG last call
> comments
> 
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> A new version has been submitted that intends to address all the issues
>> we have consensus on addressing. I have attempted to list all the
>> individual comments here and their resolution as I view them.
>> 
>> New draft version:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt
>> 
>> Diff from previous version.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09
>> 
>> In addition to the below issues raised, the authors has done some
>> editorial fixes to improve the language.
>> 
>> Paul Hoffman's comments on 22 Nov
>> ---------------------------------
>> 
>> 1. Proposal to make the system port range equal to the registered range.
>> 
>> Outcome: No clear consensus on making the change. There was some support
>> for this change. But also push back on doing the change. The push back
>> can be summarized as: Agreement that in theory there should be no
>> differences, however in reality there are a number of implementations,
>> mostly UNIX dialects that do make a difference. Thus there is anyway
>> need to differentiate the system ports range from the regular. This
>> document isn't the one to make a statement that systems should be
>> implemented without any real difference between the ranges.
>> 
>> I hope this issue is closed, but I recognize that the all has not been
>> given sufficient time to respond to it. If the outcome changes a new
>> version will be submitted.
>> 
>> 2. References with URLs that point to pearl script for the forms.
>> 
>> Outcome: Removed the explicit URLs, now only pointing to IANA.
>> 
>> 3. Concern over the few WG last call reviews.
>> 
>> Outcome: Noted, and agree that more reviews are desirable. It is clear
>> that at least 2 has done a review beyond the author team. The number of
>> different people engaging in discussion issues has been more than 10.
>> 
>> Paul Hoffman's comments around security on the 4th of Nov
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Summary of concern: Strong recommendations for only using one port, this
>> has security impact on protocols that needs to run both with and without
>> TLS.
>> 
>> Outcome: Major discussion including people from the TLS WG mailing list.
>> Views on the issue was diverse. In the end only minor changes had
>> consensus along the lines:  The policy is to try to conserve port space
>> as much as possible, it is not impossible to get a second port for TLS
>> usage. However, you need to convince the expert review team that you
>> have a real problem otherwise.
>> 
>> The draft has been changed in the following way:
>> - Changed the policy description so it uses "strive" to make it clear
>> that it is an strong goal not a unbudging requirement.
>> - Changed the introductory wording in Section 7.2 to make it clear that
>> there are room for discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> Tom Petch's comment on the 3 of Nov
>> -----------------------------------
>> 
>> Mixed usage of assignment, allocation and registration.
>> 
>> Outcome: Fixed in new draft, using assignment.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Magnus Westerlund
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>