Subject: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:46:58 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport Port Numbers
        Author          : Joe Touch
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-10.txt
	Pages           : 23
	Date            : 2015-03-25

Abstract:
   This document provides recommendations to application and service
   protocol designers on how to use the assigned transport protocol
   port number space and when to request a port assignment from IANA.
   It provides designer guidelines on how to interact with the IANA
   processes defined in RFC6335, thus serving to complement (but not
   update) that document.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-10

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:07:48 -0700

This version reflects feedback from WG consensus at the IETF and a minor
clarification to a textual ambiguity.

Joe

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:25:37 +0000

The tsvwg WG consensus (sense or the room yesterday) was that after
deletion of one word, the new text in Section 7.4 is an acceptable
result of the concerns about this section that were raised in IESG
Evaluation.  Absent substantial objections on the list, this will
be confirmed as the overall WG consensus on this issue.

I want to emphasize the words "acceptable" and "substantial" - the
text is not perfect, but something like 6 Area Directors have had
a voice in the discussions that lead to what we currently have.

Editorial suggestions are not appropriate at this juncture (we are
past both WG and IETF Last Call) - objections should rise to the
level at which the objector would expect an Area Director to take
a Discuss position ... because any edits to this text have the
potential to cause exactly that result ;-).

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-10.txt
>