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

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 18 February 2020 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352581200F9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:36:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgWzGZXWPPFU for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi [193.64.193.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B3521200F8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0254920263; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:36:36 +0200 (EET)
Received: from gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.115]) by vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB93620085; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:36:35 +0200 (EET)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eggert@elisanet.fi) by gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD4A740006; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:36:32 +0200 (EET)
Received: from stickers.eggert.org (Stickers.eggert.org [172.24.110.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C27EC660BF1; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:36:24 +0200 (EET)
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <49A59119-5F01-4073-8883-5ECDDA0B8A32@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FA149D56-FD30-4642-BF64-9B57C905DDAE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:36:24 +0200
In-Reply-To: <c432c59b-0df6-9ad1-177f-8de8e1d07119@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhust <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <3cdde689-7031-a1de-1d4e-16a86e40f35c@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <c432c59b-0df6-9ad1-177f-8de8e1d07119@strayalpha.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: C27EC660BF1.A54A9
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Tf4tiYqU_GlgRvJi9UAFbTl7OCI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for working group feedback on draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:36:41 -0000

Hi,

I agree with Joe on all points.

I can't recall seeing any discussion anywhere about there being a problem. Have I missed that discussion? I might be convinced that a sweeping action as requested by this document is necessary, but it clearly requires pretty strong motivation.

(I will point out that we followed the process in 6335 with no problem when we recently reassign UDP/433 for HTTP over QUIC, including contacting the original assignee. So there is at least one counter-example where the current process worked fine.)

Thanks,
Lars

On 2020-2-18, at 1:06, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> I object on process grounds at a minimum and call for its "last calls" to be revoked by the sponsoring AD and WG chair as follows:
> 
> 1) this doc went to "IETF last call" (according to the doc tracker) without ever being announced on the IETF-wide last call list
> 
> 2) this doc went to "last call" both there and (via this announcement) here without ever being posted for open discussion on any IETF list
> 
>     - it is my understanding that first call != last call
> 
> 3) this doc falls clearly within the purview of TSVWG, as it *should* be handled similar to RFCs 6335 and 7605; it should have been submitted for WG consideration FIRST - before being posted even for LC.
> 
> The fact that this doc is being rushed through as an individual submission by the transport AD as sponsored by another AD of the IESG is highly suspicious and IMO inappropriate.
> 
> Regarding content, I've already provided feedback, including the above, that has been largely ignored since mid-Dec privately by author and IESG ADs alike.
> 
> To repeat: the authors need to DO THEIR HOMEWORK as follows:
> 
> - correct the errors
> 
>     - RFC 6335 defines reassignment and the appeals process, in contrast to the claims of this doc, including when a party is no longer reachable (the IESG or IAB appeal would decide how to proceed)
> 
>     - RFC 6335 also explains the process for deassignment, which is much more involved than described here
> 
>     - if this doc is intended to update RFC 6335, it should say so AND BE A TSVWG adopted item, not merely an individual submission
> 
> - show an empirical need for dealing with standards-track ports in bulk rather than on a per-issue basis
> 
>     - especially given at least some of the issues in this doc, such as "orphaned" ports (whose contact is no longer reachable), represent an ongoing problem that cannot be corrected  by a single pass
> 
> - provide a COMPLETE list of the impacted standards-track ports not already assigned to the IESG, *including* those in the user ports space (not merely system, which RFC 7605 already suggests not treating as privileged anyway)
> 
> - NOT attempt to "reclaim unused" system ports, for several reasons:
> 
>     a) see the hazards of deassignment per RFC 6335
> 
>     b) see the recommendation to not treat system ports as privileged and thus there would be no utility in focusing on reclaiming entries from that range
> 
> - limit the scope of this doc to those such ports, rather than implying the IESG will be "reclaiming" the entire system ports space (including rewriting the title and abstract)
> 
> - NOT attempt to subvert the appeals process for port reassignment as per RFC6335
> 
> - NOT attempt to subvert the WG process by submitting this as "individual"
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 2/17/2020 12:15 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>> This is notice to request for working group feedback on “Reassignment of System Ports to the IESG”, to conclude 6th March, 2020. Please review this document and send comments to the list (or respond to the concurrent IETF LC).
>> 
>> The draft proposes a process where System Ports can be reassigned to the IESG. This would enable the current assignee in the IANA ports registry to be replaced under some conditions.
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kuehlewind-system-ports
>> 
>> Although this is not a working group document, I'm expecting some people in TSVWG to have expertise to review this draft based on RFC 6335 (was draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports), which described Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry.
>> 
>> -- Gorry Fairhurst
>> TSVWG co-chair
>> 
>