Subject: [port-srv-reg] Slides for TSVWG on draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:47:06 -0700

Hi,

I looked through the emails I had in my folders and constructed the
attached slides. As TSVWG is on Monday we don't have a lot of time. My
question to all of you are that you help identify the ones that aren't
simple editorial and where we might not have consensus.

Please rehash these slides in anyway you want.

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: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:05:58 +0000

> Please rehash these slides in anyway you want.
I only have 1 general comment about your slides (which look fine 
otherwise). It would be nice to know how you suggest to address various 
issue. Your slides list all issues, but they don't say if all issues 
will be addressed.

I personally think that not all of them should be addressed. For example 
I am not convinced that the reference to 
draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify needs to be normative.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:47:51 -0700

Hi Alexey,

The slides was a start collecting the issues. I was hoping that someone
would pick it up and do a pass over them to create something more useful.

Regarding the reference. We clearly have interactions between the
documents and those needs to be sorted out. One possibility that I
proposed was that Olafurs document would need to update this one as it
comes out. But see discussion on TSVWG mailing list.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:35:48 -0700

Hi,

Update version of the slides

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:41:39 -0700

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Magnus Westerlund
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> documents and those needs to be sorted out.

Agreed.

> One possibility that I
> comes out.

I think that this make sense.

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:59:49 -0400

Magnus,
slides look fine, you are missing the action item that I requested that
the draft contain the format of the registry so Alfred and I can 
generate the registry clean-up document that will update this document 
and move registrations around etc.

	Olafur

On 22/03/2010 12:35 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:03:51 -0700

> and move registrations around etc.

Olafur, the following bullet on Page 6 was intended to cover this:

- Include protype for how the registry does look like

Do you have an alternative wording for this that makes it clearer?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:13:45 -0400

> Do you have an alternative wording for this that makes it clearer?

That will do

	Olafur

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:41:01 -0700

> and move registrations around etc.

The point of the doc is to update the procedures for updating the
registry, and to unify control of the registries under one aegis.

Since we're not indicating an automatic interface to that information,
other than indicating the fields (which we should and already do), the
remainder is merely presentation, and I don't see why this doc should
require, recommend, or even give an example of that.

Joe