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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------