Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10

After a further discussion with IESG, editors and people who raised comments in IETF LC, there is a rough consensus to drop the following sentence from an RFC Editor's note proposed earlier:

  Therefore, an expert reviewer should not reject a proposal
  for a protocol that uses a second port to run a secure variant for
  the sole reason that it is using two ports.

[Ballot discuss]
After some internal IESG discussions and discussions with the document editors/document shepherd, there is some disagreement about whether the last sentence of the following RFC Editor note needs to be inserted into the document write-up before publication:

In Section 7.2, 5th paragraph:

OLD:
o  IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service
      or application

NEW:
o  IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service
      or application

Note: At the time of writing of this document there is no IETF consensus
on when it is appropriate to use a second port for an insecure version of
a protocol. Therefore, an expert reviewer should not reject a proposal
for a protocol that uses a second port to run a secure variant for
the sole reason that it is using two ports.


At the time of writing of this note I believe there is IETF LC consensus for this note (including the last sentence). This needs to be double checked with the TSVWG WG. If the TSVWG can't support insertion of this note, then the lack of this note would require another IETF LC to confirm that the note is not needed.

[Ballot discuss]
After some internal IESG discussions and discussions with the document editors/document shepherd, there is some disagreement about whether the following RFC Editor note needs to be inserted to the document write-up before publication:

In Section 7.2, 5th paragraph:

OLD:
o  IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service
      or application

NEW:
o  IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service
      or application

Note: At the time of writing of this document there is no IETF consensus
on when it is appropriate to use a second port for an insecure version of
a protocol. Therefore, an expert reviewer should not reject a proposal
for a protocol that uses a second port to run a secure variant for
the sole reason that it is using two ports.


At the time of writing of this note I believe there is IETF LC consensus for this note. This needs to be double checked with the TSVWG WG. If the TSVWG can't support insertion of this note, then the lack of this note would require another IETF LC to confirm that the note is not needed.

[Ballot discuss]
This document, with the controversial proposed text, should go through WGLC by the TSVWG WG, and be reviewed by the TSV Directorate.
It should also wait for Lars to be back from vacation, so he can review and comment on the proposed text.

[Ballot comment]
I need to check if IETF LC comments regarding anonymous reviewers should be addressed
- as per document authors this is out of scope for this document and might be described in a future document.

(Currently internal processes of the IANA ports and services expert review team are not documented in any RFC. This document doesn't change that.)

[Ballot comment]
I need to check if IETF LC comments regarding anonymous reviewers should be addressed
- as per document authors this is out of scope for this document and will be described in another document.

(Currently internal processes of the IANA ports and services expert review team are not documented in any RFC. This document doesn't change that.)

[Ballot comment]
1) I can't see how "IANA strives to" is functionally in any way different from "IANA SHOULD". What do you expect either IANA or the expert reviewers to do differently given those different phrases as guidance?

2) This document should acknowledge that the conversation around non-anonymous expert review happened, call out the conclusion (I believe we saw community consensus that it was important), and recommend the work that would need to happen to put that in place.

[Ballot comment]
(I didn't think of this but it might be a good idea)

It would be nice to have something that would allow a 3rd party to indicate that a service name/port number can be de-assigned.  For example,  the assignee is unreachable and their company have gone belly up.  Their protocol was never widely deployed and ten years later it's completely gone.  A good netizen could inform IANA about this and then IANA could determine whether it's true and de-assign the name/number.

[Ballot comment]
(1) In section 7.2, the word "strives" and phrase "strive to" are used repeatedly in an effort to give IANA some wiggle room.  While wiggle room is probably a necessity, it would be helpful to explain when the wiggle room may reasonably be required.  It would probably be good to require additional information in the request whenever the submitter asks IANA to violate these principles.

This *might* help avoid some appeals.

(2) In 8.2, the process for de-assignment can only be initiated by the Assignee:

  The Assignee of a granted port number assignment can return the port
  number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a need for it.

Section 8.4, revocation, would presumably cover the case where the  process was initiated by someone other than the Assignee.  However, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for a 3rd party to indicate they believed specific ports could safely be de-assigned/revoked.  Should this section provide instructions (e.g., email destination, preferred subject line, required contents) for such submissions?

[Note: the remainder of 8.4 seems entirely satisfactory to process such a request...]

(3) Waiting to see what Alexey determines about anonymous reviewers :)

[Ballot comment]
In 8.2, the process for de-assignment can only be initiated by the Assignee:

  The Assignee of a granted port number assignment can return the port
  number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a need for it.

Section 8.4, revocation, would presumably cover the case where the  process
was initiated by someone other than the Assignee.  However, there doesn't
seem to be a mechanism for a 3rd party to indicate they believed specific
ports could safely be de-assigned/revoked.  Should this section provide
instructions (e.g., email destination, preferred subject line, required contents)
for such submissions?

[Note: the remainder of 8.4 seems entirely satisfactory to process such a request...]

[Ballot comment]
In 8.2, the process for de-assignment can only be initiated by the Assignee:

  The Assignee of a granted port number assignment can return the port
  number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a need for it.

Section 8.4 would presumably cover the case where the Assignee is

[Ballot comment]
I need to check if IETF LC comments regarding anonymous reviewers should be addressed
- as per document authors this is out of scope for this document and will be described in another document.

(Currently internal processes of the IANA ports and services design team are not documented by any RFC. This document doesn't change that.)

[Ballot comment]
I have one question which is almost a discuss discuss. Should IANA reserve/have a special request process for services that contain IETF key words that imply critical IETF services (IETF, BGP, MPLS...) so no one can pass of a proprietary design as one approved by the IETF.

[Ballot discuss]
I am strongly in favor of this document and will probably change my ballot to "Yes" once we have a chance to discuss the following two issues.

1. [addressed by existing text, clarified through discussion]

2. Regarding port numbers, Section 8.1.1 states:

      Note that
      the applicant MUST NOT use the requested port prior to the
      completion of the assignment.

This seems quite unrealistic, because developers (and developer communities) use ports all the time when designing and testing application protocols Prohibiting such experimentation strikes me as detrimental to innovation and opposed to the IETF's principles of "rough consensus and running code".

[Ballot comment]
You will need to not have citations from the Abstract.

---

I am worried that this document should discuss deprecation. I don't
think it is important enough for a Discuss, but would appreciate the
authors considering this. IMHO, it is subtly different from
de-assignment.

[Ballot discuss]
I am strongly in favor of this document and will probably change my ballot to "Yes" once we have a chance to discuss the following two issues.

1. In several places, the document mentions "TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP"; for example, Section 8.1.1 states:

  o  Transport Protocol(s): The transport protocol(s) for which an
      assignment is requested MUST be provided.  This field is currently
      limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.

It is not clear whether other transport protocols could be allowed in the future, without publishing a document that obsoletes or updates this document. It strikes me that some agility would be desirable here.

2. Regarding port numbers, Section 8.1.1 states:

      Note that
      the applicant MUST NOT use the requested port prior to the
      completion of the assignment.

This seems quite unrealistic, because developers (and developer communities) use ports all the time when designing and testing application protocols Prohibiting such experimentation strikes me as detrimental to innovation and opposed to the IETF's principles of "rough consensus and running code".

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
Waiting for a new revision to address AD review comments, as well as some comments from IETF LC (in particular some clarifications about registration of multiple ports and whether IETF consensus documents still need Expert Review)

IANA has been an integral part of the development of this document and
the IANA Actions required upon its publication have been carefully
considered by IANA.

IANA understands that this document makes major changes to the Service
Name and Ports registry and is prepared to take the necessary actions on
those registries if the document is approved.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the
  Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
  Registry'
  as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-02-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports/

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Gorry Fairhurst

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The WGLC ended Friday, 26th November 2010. The WGLC process provoked
quite a lot of discussion on the principles and procedures, resulting in
new document 2nd December 2010. A short discussion followed on the list
to confirm the changes that resulted, and this is the document now
presented here for IESG consideration.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

The document does describe things that impact IANA, but IANA did also
contribute to the writing of this document.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

The WG supported this document for publication. A number of other
individual documents have been proposed, which if published could update
this document or complement this (e.g. on port usage).

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes.
I expect a normative reference is intended also to [RFC4960].

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

The BNF was checked during WGLC.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling assignment and other
requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port
Number Registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles
behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term
sustainability of the registry. This document updates IANA's
procedures by obsoleting the previous procedures for TCP and UDP
and updates procedures for other IETF transports. It also updates
the DNS SRV specification

Working Group Summary

This document is a product of the TSVWG, and was reviewed in working
group meetings and via the tsvwg list.

Document Quality

The document was reviewed by the WG, and reviewed by the group. In
particular, Alfred Hoenes (ah@tr-sys.de) and Allison Mankin
(mankin@psg.com) contributed test, ideas and reviews. The document has
also received an AD review, which has been posted to the WG.--
Prof Gorry Fairhurst, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland,
No SC013683.