Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-03
review-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-03-intdir-lc-volz-2025-07-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2025-07-15
Requested 2025-07-01
Requested by Mahesh Jethanandani
Authors Mohamed Boucadair
I-D last updated 2025-12-09 (Latest revision 2025-09-16)
Completed reviews Intdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Bernie Volz (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Roni Even (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -07 by Magnus Nyström
Assignment Reviewer Bernie Volz
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/9_tK87pSTGykem6YLIdEVbN280U
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-07-01
review-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-03-intdir-lc-volz-2025-07-01-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-03. These comments were written primarily for
the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s)
should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other
IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that
have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES /
NO OBJECTION.

This document looks fine. I had thought that perhaps it should indicate it
updates a couple older RFCs but as these are already marked historic, unlikely
to be of any use.

It seems worthwhile to remove the unneeded port assignments.

It might be a question of whether a RFC is needed to do this, especially for
documents marked historic, but I assume if not the IESG will indicate so and
likely this work would not have been started. And, that would not remove the
unneeded UDP port assignments for -ssh and -beep.