Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 19 May 2021 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 94FF23A1B43 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=strayalpha.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 5bf0GaL_qa6o for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-5.web-hosting.com (server217-5.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EBCF3A1B16 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; 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=Kf+VeXy54YVe70YnrkHXjicoMZMB7QYa1y3xXlh3gKw=; b=B7g6flz7PUAU2MDpBok70VT816 m9jNUPNagdG0VcMBVwzrQhSmvMQjFn+oifewi1p3yPHadHCX6Uujvd8RAzP0xZ8SKXdIQqHGct/NQ JVsckoJRoZbMTWE2iaLZ2IUesKN7KN/36tPEF5DOSLSvVg5/hP2ozgkoHNaLImurR+UeoW6QURKh2 UJKq8Gnt2EQe+XjdasYMCi/E9KdYVQhdcCPovKQbcLp59ObJ0LAd9tpu+IBjoGULJELDjgTNXbWtI ELTw43BLzCM8tMziL/TjOeZgMOiL26foBnkVQfGlFfa4vBBum5zj23lGSSXiel7x6uaw1NcUZO5cj JvQAUWiA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:58490 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1ljCZ7-003EGx-3h; Tue, 18 May 2021 23:08:13 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F887AFC6-6BCE-4EE3-8DAF-A064E3B5DA57"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxRcxJ7HZSG2gk75+sA1PRWjkQqQT0F7+1EsG8gLOy__yA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 20:08:07 -0700
Cc: Joseph Touch via IANA-Port-Experts <iana-port-experts@icann.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <4E4C4480-631E-4AA9-89F7-B173A57C0625@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAM4esxRcxJ7HZSG2gk75+sA1PRWjkQqQT0F7+1EsG8gLOy__yA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
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 - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/sdMmpB5kpZ6Y5sZsz_037qv0Mnk>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests
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: Wed, 19 May 2021 03:08:22 -0000

Hi, Martin,

The only response I can imagine would be:

“Port assignments are assigned as per RFC6335 and RCC7605. No party is ever directly prohibited from applying for port assignments. Those terms are set by the IETF and IANA, and are updated by IETF consensus; they are not subject to negotiation.”

I.e., although what they state is true, it is not true by some sort of agreement between the IETF and 3GPP.

Joe

> On May 18, 2021, at 10:48 AM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello TSVWG and port experts,
> 
> We got this 3GPP Liaison Statement last month:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1726/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1726/>
> 
> The key paragraphs are:
> 3GPP understands that it could be possible to assign to 3GPP a port per
> transport protocol (UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP) that will be used for service port
> negotiation/discovery for all the future internal interfaces defined by 3GPP,
> avoiding the need for a systematic IANA port assignment for interfaces used
> only inside the 3GPP system...
> 
> ...it is also the 3GPP understanding that this statement cannot
> prohibit 3GPP to request in the future a port assignment for a new service
> application for which none of the port assignment alternatives would be
> applicable.
> 
> They would like confirmation, IIUC, that they are not cut off from any further port assignments.
> Any feedback on what I should tell them in response?
> Your friendly AD,
> Martin
>