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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:05 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> this generally looks good to me and keeping it short is probably the right
> approach. I believe one of their meta-concern is still that it is maybe not
> fully clear to them when they should ask for a port. Also I think if they
> specify any new services that could be used internet-wide, we actually want
> them to come to us.
>
>
>
> Maybe a tiny little tweak could help:
>
>
>
> OLD
>
> A application justified by a particular use case will be evaluated in
> accordance with IETF and IANA policy, just like any other.
>
>
>
> NEW
>
> A application justified by a particular use case, especially if that use
> case is deployed over the open Internet, should be registered with IANA
> and will be evaluated in accordance with IETF and IANA policy, just like
> any other request.
>
>
>
> Not sure if that is too much or helps at all but wanted to propose it for
> your consideration.
>

I think this helps.

There are certainly 3GPP participants who know what the "IETF and IANA
policy" for port assignments is, but for other participants who don't know
yet, and might be tempted to request a port assignment in the future, you
might want to include a reference to where you think people can find the
relevant policy.

Do The RIght Thing, of course.

Best,

Spencer


> Mirja
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *tsvwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Martin Duke <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 20. May 2021 at 01:47
> *To: *Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Joseph Touch via IANA-Port-Experts <[e-mail]>,
> tsvwg <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [tsvwg] 3GPP Liaison Statement clarifying port requests
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>