Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for working group feedback on draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020)
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 18 February 2020 04:20 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 633D31200B2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:20:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 iG7zwnPGt8z9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 565B7120074 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id 4so9959141pfz.9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:20:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dWvJb6jTJ1p/XnjFSqCsZsXwZP7qjh1hzjxjAq103J4=; b=MQlE5lca0egDSYpKZPslku4IHC3+HKqqe8e75s8yfyZmxm6NsQWZmM1yXy74yFagax DAWGv6BvaaKiPXw+IwWeMrnp4MmFwAcoTxHHeIpTjVZeV67/VdarDNNdQ1y2sEjols0/ gjV6JrAqwDhJw/P6F6DnujjSw7/AvibCv83FPDrkQort8octS+OhL3cnXoPZjiZdSgt5 GA8/WkNy2ZNd0UBBJnkaKYu7tBBFifEQnqv+pzqtChd8Pf0Fd8zuE7YjJ7hSG0IfShhq Rtsr9VxDSK8WnfamLkT7Vyx8bUUsvT9UbvPOR+DUIUq0ExdjLPRVJ45onzCuVCFkuIvj WaJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dWvJb6jTJ1p/XnjFSqCsZsXwZP7qjh1hzjxjAq103J4=; b=VIOOyKm6Cz/y4F6IcqqzAzLMDkAvkvN/x2Ezxrq7GxLd2oKmkykkF9c5sN68C0r38u fNm6wS1FZpAUkRTT4gmcZgJW1PNyuHRdhY1bF1KDtROr+3jPNPsPBCWYwNZ/w+0SSFGs pHbqdNib4qFYIZBjq3kdqouokSaLXfzWodUOqxi+QwTDcLsMbOW29tyw5IdPf1D6QeUx fdnM1pdhpm+JUnGHzEkAB1DR+Cf/Y2F21U4GH3zdPmufrPYlTqRsei2PPhz+HY/VkmYX mtlPbTMfEivgRfAnDQikhrvBifI7ad9opvpAgtJs7TwWkqMAt+w7fQW4Xq/lsCDeQ5Qr v47Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW/3rSbxyXO2x5XcTnBLgMAoHC37OOGZ6+g5lDml8uYAOCSm12C B9OqvqBNg2TMaP+Qx7rV0N+uQyhR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAnKQaQOPnR9Qg1OZHuQqoExCDZJ1O3oKjsvL2Ga4wCWR2KwHZU8d3+sBymgjHuuimHPOJuA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:3f85:: with SMTP id m127mr21054614pga.15.1581999627369; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.1.51] ([203.167.222.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm946594pjs.25.2020.02.17.20.20.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:20:26 -0800 (PST)
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <3cdde689-7031-a1de-1d4e-16a86e40f35c@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <c432c59b-0df6-9ad1-177f-8de8e1d07119@strayalpha.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <91609d1b-b728-c694-9298-61d9d977b077@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:20:23 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c432c59b-0df6-9ad1-177f-8de8e1d07119@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/hf2F9KWF9N7XNnn65Nm5TmqFfeY>
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 04:20:30 -0000
Joe, On 18-Feb-20 12:06, Joe Touch 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 I don't understand what you think is wrong, procedurally. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/C3YU0i15ZSTaYHPMKOe_8sGVmLk is a standard Last Call message, and it's a 4-week last call as required for non-WG documents. As far as I can tell that fully respects RFC2026 etc. > > 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 You can dislike that, but it isn't against the rules as far as I can tell. (In fact I suspect that's exactly why the 4-week last call was invented.) > - 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. That sounds logical, but it's matter of opinion. Lacking expertise, I don't have an opinion either way. From a quick glance at the draft, it doesn't seem to me that it's a hidden update to 6355; but it does attempt to short-cut the procedure for a specific set of port numbers. Whether that is a good idea clearly needs discussion. Brian > > 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 >> > >
- [tsvwg] Request for working group feedback on dra… Gorry Fairhurst
- [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Lars Eggert
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request… Joseph Touch