Subject: WG call for interest to work on draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use [due: 10-Feb-12]

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:57:58 +0000

The TSV working group is  considering the possibility of adopting the
topic of the below as a work item. Please send email to this list to
help the WG Chairs determine if this document should proceed within
the TSVWG.

      Recommendations for Transport Port Uses
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use-01

This document was presented at IETF-81. At that time, but at that
time there was little comment on the draft.

A hum at IETF-82 indicated there may be interest in work on
this topic. Therefore, the Chairs request feedback from this working
group, by 10th Feb 2012.

Please send email to this group (or the Chairs) in response to the
following:

   * Have you read this version of the draft?

   * Do you think this is an important area of work for TSVWG?

   * Do you think *THIS* draft is a good a starting point for the work?

   * Do you plan to contribute or help write the WG draft?

   * Would you be willing to comment upon/review future versions of this
     work for the working group?

All comments are welcome via the list, or directly to the WG Chairs.

Gorry & James
(tsvwg chairs)

-- 
Prof Gorry Fairhurst, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland,
No SC013683.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:30:05 -0800

Hi, all,

I'm obviously in favor ;-) That aside:

As some additional context, this document intends to include some of the 
recommendations that were deemed out of scope for RFC 6335 (which 
focused on IANA procedures rather than best practices for users).

These could be gentle (users are encouraged to...) or BCP-style.

We can be very clear as to whether this document is intended to guide 
IANA decisions on port assignments (i.e., we can either suggest it is, 
declare that it is not, or say that we make no claim either way).

Some very important issues *could* be in scope for this document (or 
could be declared out of scope), e.g.:

	- discuss and/or make a recommendation about whether to
	continue the system/user port space distinction
	(IMO, the only useful way to do this is to suggest
	that IANA cease allocating system ports)

	- discuss and/or make a recommendation about whether
	secure and nonsecure versions of the same service should
	use a single port or separate ports

At the very least, this could be a useful reference to newbies who are 
creating services, and would be highly beneficial to the ports review 
team (which I currently lead).

Joe