Subject: Re: [tsvwg] additional ports for security - Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-04 (to end 6th June)

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:04:55 +0200

On 5/28/14, 1:15 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Note that we didn't actively change anything when RFC 6335 was
> published; it was not used to justify recommending declining requests.

Although as an expert reviewer- I am now basing my logic on that
content, and especially as relates to proprietary protocols.

Eliot

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:44:07 +0100

This email follows conclusion of the first WGLC for draft 
"Recommendations for Transport Port Uses" as 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-04.txt.

As the chair responsible for this draft, I was pleased to see much 
discussion on the scope and details of this draft. But, I did not see 
consensus that this draft is yet ready for publication. I also note one 
question about the need to publish on this topic.

I now request Joe to review the comments and work on updated text to 
address the issues raised. This will require an updated draft, and 
discussion within the WG to resolve all important issues, contributions 
are encouraged to complete this work.

If this proceeds, a further WGLC will be needed prior to requesting 
publication of the draft.

Gorry
(TSVWG Co-Chair)