Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 23:35:08 +0100

The IESG wrote:

>    <draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-00.txt> as a BCP

+1, maybe s/to use of the/to use the limited/

>From -00 to Last Call in less than three hours, is that
a "speedy publish" procedure I haven't heard of before ?

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:08:31 +1300

> +1, maybe s/to use of the/to use the limited/

I also think this is an appropriate, even if significant,
change of policy. I really don't see why we would give away
a precious resource such as a protocol number for secret
usage.

Red herring as far as this draft is concerned: I'd be interested
to know why we are still willing to allow non-disclosure for
port numbers (see RFC 2780 sections 8 and 9.1). Port numbers
are going fast.

> a "speedy publish" procedure I haven't heard of before ?

I-D submission tool plus the sponsoring AD's special buttons in
the I-D tracker. Seems like eating our own dogfood to me.

    Brian

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:35:28 +0200

> port numbers (see RFC 2780 sections 8 and 9.1). Port numbers

We've recently been discussing port number allocation procedures with  
IANA, and changes may be coming.

Lars

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:45:00 +0200

Brian, Frank,

> port numbers (see RFC 2780 sections 8 and 9.1). Port numbers

As was mentioned already, this is something that Lars and a
few other folks are currently looking at. I'm presuming that
there will be a draft about this later.

But the port case might be different; that's why they are pursued
separately, even if both share some practical problems associated
with NDAs for volunteer experts etc. I view the protocol number
rule change as a bug fix.

> the I-D tracker. Seems like eating our own dogfood to me.

Its part of the IESG's effort to improve the speed of our process
by moving to units of hours instead of months ;-) But seriously,
this was merely the combination of a very short draft, a change
that appears to be the right thing, sponsoring AD (Russ) being
aware of the issue from past discussions with IANA, and the
AD review getting done in fifteen minutes after I requested
it. But the main effort and bulk of time for this draft is in
the public discussion of what rules makes sense -- and we
just started that in the last call.

More generally, short drafts and bug fixes tend to go through
relatively quickly. Individual submissions via sponsoring AD
may sometimes go quicker than WG submissions, because there
are less forums and their managers to go through. However,
individual submissions may get less priority from the ADs
if they have many WG submissions on their queue as well.
And complex proposals need some forum for the discussion
to happen in any case. Finally, drafts that do not need
modification at LC or IESG review stage tend to go through
about four times as fast as drafts that do need modification.

Jari