Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Who is doing the presenations in APParea and TSVWG

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:05:16 -0800

On 29 Oct 2009, at 7:27, Joe Touch wrote:

> I'm open Mon AM and can present if useful. I'll also be at TSVWG.
>
> Joe

Do you have some slides prepared Joe?

If you do, and you can email them to the list, I'll take a look at  
them tonight and give you feedback.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
* Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
* Internet Architecture Board
* www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:19:52 -0800

Feedback appreciated. I will be able to edit until about 0800 Monday,
but need to post for those online by then.

Joe

Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> If you do, and you can email them to the list, I'll take a look at them
> tonight and give you feedback.
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:58:05 +0900

Hi,

Some comments.

1. The draft name isn't in the presentation

2. Should we mention more about the service name confusion? I think the
fact that port table service names has been considered by some but
couldn't be registered only, the "protocol and serivces" registry (that
lacks rules) resulted in Stuarts registry. This is important background
why we want to pull them into one common registry?

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

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: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:22:10 +0000

Looks good to me,

A few comments on the slides and the draft...

Slide 1:
- It would be good to include the draft name on the slide:
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03

Slide 8:
This line took me a wee moment to decipher:
"Port only for transports requested"
- is it better as?:
"Port only for requested transports"

Slide 11:
This line doesn't seem to be the whole story:

"Service code to at most one port"
-> This isn't a requirement as per RFC 5595 (e.g. section 4.1), although 
it is good as common practice, unless the requester knows better and 
requires expert review (as described in the draft section 10.3.2). Did 
you mean at most one port per service code?

=============

And a wee bit of (late) feedback on the DCCP topics in the draft:

Section 10.3.1:
- It is good to also cite RFC 5595 (you currently cite the draft) for 
service code information, since this updated RFC 4340 in many ways.

- We MUST note in the new draft that no registry allocations can be made 
for zero or 4294967295, and no registry allocations can be made for 
1056964608-1073741823 (high byte ASCII "?") reserved for private use 
[19.8 of RFC 4340].

- I think we may have missed the rule that:
   "IANA MUST NOT allocate more than one DCCP server port with a
    single Service Code value."

- Does this draft also updates RFC 5595, since the latter states where 
ports and service codes are registered?

Section 10.3.2:
- I think it would also be helpful to cite RFC 5595 in 10.3.2 - since 
this explains how ports and SC interact and how you can manage without 
port allocations.

Section 11: You didn't fix the acknowledgments:-)
- I don't recall Tom being in the loop, what I recall was that I ripped 
the first version of text from an earlier draft of RFC 5595 
(draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-04.txt).  You could check with Tom, if you 
like;-)

Gorry

Joe Touch wrote:
 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >>
 >> _______________________________________________
 >> Port-srv-reg mailing list
 >> [email-masked]
 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:07:01 -0800

> 1. The draft name isn't in the presentation

Done.

> why we want to pull them into one common registry?

I think I know what you're getting at, but this is hard to parse
unambiguously.

Take a look at the new slide 5 and see if it fixes this.

Question: are we asserting that all assigned names can be used in SRV
records? Or are we saying that only those names that have also requested
SRV use can be? It seems like that decision has already been made by the
public, i.e., that "all assigned names can be used in SRV".

Let me know ASAP, please.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:14:22 -0800

I just posted a version including Magnus' comments. Attached is a
version that further includes Gorry's below. See notes...

Joe

Done.

Done.

> you mean at most one port per service code?

Yes. (sorry - I wrote it backwards, using "to").
Fixed.

> service code information, since this updated RFC 4340 in many ways.

Will do.

> 1056964608-1073741823 (high byte ASCII "?") reserved for private use

The doc just talks about coordinating tables. It doesn't repeat rules
that occur elsewhere (or at least shouldn't, and if it does they should
be removed).

>    single Service Code value."

see 10.3.2:

   o  IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than
      one DCCP server port.

Is this the same thing or not? If so, which wording is better? If not,
do we need both, and how can we make this more clear?

> ports and service codes are registered?

Will do.

> this explains how ports and SC interact and how you can manage without

Will do.

> (draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-04.txt).  You could check with Tom, if you

Correct - we didn't fix the acks. Let's do that in the next round ;-)

Joe

---

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:14:42 -0800

Joe,

I was just approached by Peter Koch about you possibly presenting the document to the DNSOPS meeting on Wednesday to bring exposure to the ports document.
Would you be available to do this?

Michelle

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:48:36 -0800

Sure. It'd be useful to know when the agenda slot is, since I hope to
also catch some of aplusp.

Joe

Michelle Cotton wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> I was just approached by Peter Koch about you possibly presenting the
> document to the DNSOPS meeting on Wednesday to bring exposure to the
> ports document.

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:57:37 +0100

> also catch some of aplusp.

it would be under I/O with other WGs, this section currently scheduled
to start 14:35, but we can shuffle if that better fits your plans.

Thanks,
  Peter

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:00:35 -0800

> to start 14:35, but we can shuffle if that better fits your plans.

No problem - I'll likely be over in aplusp until around 14:15 in that
case. I can be reached via email if you're ready earlier.

Joe

---

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:37:19 -0800

Hello all,

Below I have the names of those I have talked to about joining for the ports lunch.

Lars
Magnus
Michelle
Mark
Olafur
Alexey
Joe T.
Stuart
Gorry
Joe H.

I have a reservation for the above 10 people for Thursday at 11:30 at the Chinese restaurant on the 5th floor.

See you there.

Thanks,

Michelle

---

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:42:02 -0800

Resending to include Olafur.

Michelle

On 11/9/09 6:37 PM, "Michelle Cotton" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hello all,

Lars
Magnus
Michelle
Mark
Olafur
Alexey
Joe T.
Stuart
Gorry
Joe H.

See you there.

Thanks,

Michelle

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:49:42 -0800

On 9 Nov 2009, at 18:37, Michelle Cotton wrote:

> I have a reservation for the above 10 people for Thursday at 11:30  
> at the Chinese restaurant on the 5th floor.
>
> See you there.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michelle

I'm very happy to say that I think we're extremely close to agreement  
on draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports, if not already there. Having talked to  
a few people, the consensus seems to be that we should be able to do a  
Last Call and wrap up this work by January -- and there's considerable  
interest in the community for seeing us do that. People have been  
waiting for this new unified registry for a long time.

Accordingly, if you have any remaining issues, please come on Thursday  
ready to discuss those, so we can resolve any remaining differences  
and move forward. I hope that by the Anaheim IETF meeting we'll have  
an RFC published.

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:16:15 +0000

Thanks Joe - we still have one DCCP "invertor" in the rules, see below.

Gorry

>    o  IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than

That seems the wrong way round in the draft you are editing.

The fundamental rule is: ONLY port one allocated to a particular SC.

The recommended registration policy needs to try to allocate an unused 
port (for DCCP) to a new SC, avoiding unintentional allocation of one 
port to more than one SC. (Note thought that this *IS* permitted in 
DCCP. When you need multiple SC per port, an allocation CAN be requested 
with expert review).

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:48:28 +0100

> waiting for this new unified registry for a long time.

I believe this is good and important work filling an existing gap.
However, it seems to actually introduce concepts into the protocol
space, like "ownership" of these registrations, that are better known
from both the domain name and the address registry functions.  I'd like
to understand how the upcoming management issues that these communities
have had to learn deal with will be addressed (no pun) for this port/service
name registry. "vanity" registrations and registrant data accuracy (over
time) come to mind immediately.

-Peter

---

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:13:59 -0800

I just wanted to say thank you all for attending the lunch today.
Though it has a been painful journey so far, I believe we made great progress today!

Thanks,

Michelle

---

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:05:07 -0800

Hello All,

I just wanted to remind everyone of the timeline we agreed upon.
I'll do my best to help stay on track via reminders.

Dec 7 - Have a revised version of the document (based on changes discussed in our meeting), send to TSVWG, APPS Area and DNSOPS for comment

Jan 2010 - WG Last Call the document

Feb 2010 - IETF Last Call the document

Today I will be sending reminder messages to the above mentioned groups indicating we are working on a revised document.

Thanks!

Michelle

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:21:51 -0800

On 16 Nov 2009, at 1:05 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:

> I’ll do my best to help stay on track via reminders.
>
> Dec 7 – Have a revised version of the document (based on changes  
> discussed in our meeting), send to TSVWG, APPS Area and DNSOPS for  
> comment
>
> Jan 2010 – WG Last Call the document
>
> Feb 2010 – IETF Last Call the document
>
> Today I will be sending reminder messages to the above mentioned  
> groups indicating we are working on a revised document.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michelle

I'm working on the changes we discussed. I hope to have an updated  
draft out to the group for review later today.