Subject: [port-srv-reg] Comments on the draft SVN version 16

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:18:16 +0200

Hi,

Here are my comments on version 16.

1. In the below paragraph we should add UPNP as an alternative to pmp.
It is after all more commonly implemented.

 o  When different computers in a home are using a NAT gateway to
      share a single IP address, the computers can request that the NAT
      gateway create port mappings to enable them to receive inbound
      connections [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp],

2. Section 3. New paragraph between second or third?

We need to mention also the "Protocols and Service Names"
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names as a potential for
confusion, and our decision to include also these into the service name
registry to avoid collisions.

3. Section 3, third paragraph:
Also modify this to take "Protocols and Service Names" into account.

4. Instead of Section 4 "Port Number Ranges" I would insert a new
section that starts explaining Service Names and their importance as
stand alone namespace and a glue between the port registries.

In general I think the document has to little focus on service names. I
think that is what drawing comments from Olafur and Alfred.

I will draft some text in the document to try to address these comments.

cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:46:58 -0700

My previous comment was that some parts of the document focus too much
on port use, rather than port assignment. I will send proposed changes
later today.

Joe