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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

OK, here's what I have:

Thank you for your correspondence about port allocation. In your latest
message you write:

“However, besides the assignment of transport protocol port(s) that could be

requested by 3GPP for the deployment of specific service discovery

mechanism(s), 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.”

Your understanding is correct. Our previous statements on this subject are
intended to reduce port requests with a low chance of approval, but no
party is ever prohibited from requesting a port assignment. A application
justified by a particular use case will be evaluated in accordance with
IETF and IANA policy, just like any other.

***
anything to add, or is that good enough?

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 8:08 PM Joseph Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hello TSVWG and port experts,
>
> We got this 3GPP Liaison Statement last month:
> 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
>
>
>