Subject: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: [IANA #759106] Re: IANA early review for: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:12:08 -0700

The following is part of an off-list thread that we'd like to share to 
the list.

Joe

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [IANA #759106] Re: IANA early review for: 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:20:05 -0700
From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Hi, Pearl,

On 5/22/2014 3:09 PM, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
> Hi Gorry and Joe,
>
> I've reviewed this version and have some questions for clarifications:
>
> Section 7.1. Is a port assignment necessary?
>
> Question: Often time, users argued that they need a dedicated port
> because they wanted to make sure no collision.  Should we add
> that to this draft and telling users that a port assignment does
> not guarantee they are going to get a clean/good traffic?

Good point; that's worth addressing.

> Section 7.6. Transport Protocols
>
> Question: Should this document also address the needed of SCTP or DCCP
> in addition to TCP and UDP?

Yes, will do.

> Section 7.9
>
>     "Port names and numbers are not intended to be changed. "
>
> Question: we received some service names that included company name
> or the abbreviation of the company name.  Should this be discouraged
> when IANA reviews the applications?

We can talk about this; I don't think it matters, so long as the
understanding is that the name won't change just because the company does.
------