Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-02

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:34:45 +0300

Hi,

On 2009-10-5, at 18:58, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I am on record, I think, already for wanting to do away with the
> distinction of well known and reserved ports.  At the very least this
> document should justify the continued separation.

some old systems may still enforce that distinction, but I agree that  
in general it doesn't exist. And "well known" ports will require a  
convincing argument when requested for assignment, so essentially  
we're moving most requests to0 the "registered" space anyway.

> While I like the idea of deregistration in the abstract, I am  
> concerned
> about its actual implications, since it is often difficult to reach  
> the
> original requesters.  One thing I would suggest is that IANA  
> maintain a
> database of port "owners", and confirm ownership and need for the port
> periodically.

IANA does maintain such a database (we can however argue about how  
current the information in it really is), and we're now asking for  
contact information for a "Registration Technical Contact" as well as  
the "Registration Owner". The latter is supposed to be the long-term  
stable point of contact, whereas the former is the contact for the  
purposes of the actual registration action.

As for de-registration, this is an action that the original assignee  
initiates, so IANA will have a point of contact.

For revocation (= IANA-initiated de-registration) I agree that without  
a good point of contact this will be difficult.

Lars