On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be > useful: > > 1) the current doc already explicitly states the procedures for assignment > in each range of ports (see Sec 8.1.1). > > 2) Sec 8.1.1 *already* states that IESG approval through IETF process is a > valid path for assignment, distinct from Expert Review. Since that appears > to be a point of confusion, I'll quote it directly: > > o Ports in the User Ports range (1024-49151) are available for > assignment through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers > upon successful assignment. Because assigning a port number for a > specific application consumes a fraction of the shared resource > that is the port number registry, IANA will require the requester > to document the intended use of the port number. This > documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" procedure > [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert review the > request to determine whether to grant the assignment. The > submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number in > the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given application. > Ports in the User Ports range may also be assigned under the "IETF > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226], which is how most > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > assignments for IETF protocols are handled. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For the purposes of clarification, then, this document has no impact whatsoever on ports assigned through the IESG process? I.e., if my WG submits a proposed standard document to the IESG and it asks for two ports, I'm not going to get pushback based on the claim that this document imposes a presumption that that's wrong? -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
