On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:41 , Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 17:13: > >> Well lets say the request was coming from 3GPP for a protocol they designed >> - why should IANA be able to tell them no but IETF yes. > > I am not certain I understand what your issue is here. Is it that they > can come to different conclusions, and that IETF can decided to override > the expert review team? I think that is the logical conclusion, as the > IETF's decision will have gone through a consensus process. One which > the expert can provide their view into this. > >> >> I think the policy issue here is fairly clear. We do not have consensus that >> in all cases that one should not have a second port for security (I'm basing >> this assertion on Magnus read of WG consensus and my read of IETF LC >> consensus). Therefore that should not be a ground for the expert reviewer >> (or IANA) to reject the registration. The document needs to be updated to >> make that clear or it does not reflect consensus. If the authors of the >> draft want to propose text for conditions when it would be ok to reject a >> second port for security purposes and see if they can get consensus for that >> text, that seems perfectly reasonable. > > > My reading of the WG last call consensus is that nobody is disagreeing > with the goal of trying minimize the port consumption. My interpretation > is that we do need to state that goal in the document. And the only way > of achieving this is to try to minimize the consumption by each protocol > that requires a registration. That includes trying to get all > multiplexing into that single socket, or at least use it for agreeing on > dynamic range port for this protocol. > >> >> I'm sure that some people believe the draft, by using the word "strives", >> actually means that this is not a grounds for rejection but given the push >> back from Lars and Joe, I believe that "strives" means that the decision is >> up to Joe. Given things could be read either ways, I think it's fair to ask >> for the draft to clarify this. > > It is a high level goal to minimize the port space consumption. I do > believe there is strong consensus for this. And I believe that the only > way of ensuring that this goal is meet is to take a pretty hard stance > against frivolous use of ports. > > Thus, I still think there is clear grounds for rejecting requests for > multiple ports based on not sufficiently motivating why it is impossible > to not use one port. I do agree that these guidelines should be > documented, and that is the plans as far as I know.
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying here but you are avoiding the issue I am concerned with. Is allocating a second port for the secure version of a document a frivolous use case or not? I read this draft as saying it is. Others read the draft as saying it is not and that type of allocation is fine. This seems fairly easy to deal with - first lets agree if particular 2nd port for secure version is a reason to reject requests or not then see if any text needs to be adjusted in the draft to reflect that. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
