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
>>
> 
>