Hi Joe, I discussed this document with TSV ADs and here is what is going to happen next:
1) IETF LC on this document will run to the end (i.e. will not be cancelled), so that we can collect more information from people about what they want and don't want IESG to do. This includes comments from TSVWG mailing list and port experts. Once the IETF LC is finished, the draft will need to be revised to reflect this feedback. I will not have this document in IESG review before the Vancouver IETF, as it is clear at this point that some suggested actions in this draft are controversial and/or not worded clearly enough. Another Transport Area AD will take over shepherding of the document after the Vancouver IETF. 2) IESG and IANA will create a list of RFC references that should be added to registered system ports. No action will be taken without consulting IETF community. 3) IESG might also ask IANA to contact existing change controllers for existing system port registrations in order to see if current contact details are accurate. Best Regards, Alexey On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, at 11:09 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > FYI to the ARTs involved. > Discussion appears to at least be started in TSVWG finally, but claiming this > first-call as "last call" is ridiculous. > Joe > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > CALL to revoke last call: Re: [tsvwg] Request for working group feedback on > draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020) > Date: > Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:06:40 -0800 > From: > Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> > To: > Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, ts...@ietf.org <ts...@ietf.org> > > > I object on process grounds at a minimum and call for its "last calls" to be > revoked by the sponsoring AD and WG chair as follows: > > 1) this doc went to "IETF last call" (according to the doc tracker) without > ever being announced on the IETF-wide last call list > > 2) this doc went to "last call" both there and (via this announcement) here > without ever being posted for open discussion on any IETF list > > - it is my understanding that first call != last call > > 3) this doc falls clearly within the purview of TSVWG, as it *should* be > handled similar to RFCs 6335 and 7605; it should have been submitted for WG > consideration FIRST - before being posted even for LC. > > The fact that this doc is being rushed through as an individual submission by > the transport AD as sponsored by another AD of the IESG is highly suspicious > and IMO inappropriate. > > Regarding content, I've already provided feedback, including the above, that > has been largely ignored since mid-Dec privately by author and IESG ADs alike. > > To repeat: the authors need to DO THEIR HOMEWORK as follows: > > - correct the errors > > - RFC 6335 defines reassignment and the appeals process, in contrast to the > claims of this doc, including when a party is no longer reachable (the IESG > or IAB appeal would decide how to proceed) > > - RFC 6335 also explains the process for deassignment, which is much more > involved than described here > > - if this doc is intended to update RFC 6335, it should say so AND BE A > TSVWG adopted item, not merely an individual submission > > - show an empirical need for dealing with standards-track ports in bulk > rather than on a per-issue basis > > - especially given at least some of the issues in this doc, such as > "orphaned" ports (whose contact is no longer reachable), represent an ongoing > problem that cannot be corrected by a single pass > > - provide a COMPLETE list of the impacted standards-track ports not already > assigned to the IESG, *including* those in the user ports space (not merely > system, which RFC 7605 already suggests not treating as privileged anyway) > > - NOT attempt to "reclaim unused" system ports, for several reasons: > > a) see the hazards of deassignment per RFC 6335 > > b) see the recommendation to not treat system ports as privileged and thus > there would be no utility in focusing on reclaiming entries from that range > > - limit the scope of this doc to those such ports, rather than implying the > IESG will be "reclaiming" the entire system ports space (including rewriting > the title and abstract) > > - NOT attempt to subvert the appeals process for port reassignment as per > RFC6335 > > - NOT attempt to subvert the WG process by submitting this as "individual" > > Joe > > On 2/17/2020 12:15 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > >> This is notice to request for working group feedback on “Reassignment of >> System Ports to the IESG”, to conclude 6th March, 2020. Please review this >> document and send comments to the list (or respond to the concurrent IETF >> LC). >> >> The draft proposes a process where System Ports can be reassigned to the >> IESG. This would enable the current assignee in the IANA ports registry to >> be replaced under some conditions. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kuehlewind-system-ports >> >> Although this is not a working group document, I'm expecting some people in >> TSVWG to have expertise to review this draft based on RFC 6335 (was >> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports), which described Internet Assigned Numbers >> Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and >> Transport Protocol Port Number Registry. >> >> -- Gorry Fairhurst >> TSVWG co-chair >> > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
