Subject: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:09:11 -0800

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 for Transport Port Number Uses
        Author          : Joe Touch
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-07.txt
	Pages           : 22
	Date            : 2015-01-23

Abstract:
   This document provides recommendations to application and service
   designers on how to use the transport protocol port number space. It
   complements (but does not update) RFC6335, which focuses on IANA
   process.

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-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-07

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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:55:09 -0800

Hi, all,

This update includes minor changes to address IETF LC comments.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:01:51 -0800

FYI, those changes are summarized here:

---

OPS review by Tim Wicinski

	- typo (fixed)

	- suggestion to summarize MUST/MAY/SHOULDs
	in an appendix (discussed and withdrawn)

GEN-ART review by Dan Romascanu

	- suggestion to unify use of "application
	and service designers" and avoid "system
	designers" (done)

	- a request to address privacy considerations
	(done as an additional paragraph in Security
	Considerations)

review by Pearl Liang (IANA)

	- suggestion to revise IANA considerations (done)

review by Alexey Melnikov

	- suggested revision of how IANA is referred to when
	certain decisions are reached (done)

review by Michelle Cotton (IANA)

	- various typos (fixed)
	- issues similar to those raised by Alexey

----

---

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:35:26 -0800

Hi Joe,

Can you clarify bullet in section 7.1 "Port numbers not intended for
intra-machine communication..."?

I assume that this means that port numbers should not be requested for
an IPC service, but using transport protocols that have ports for
intra-machine communications is reasonable (this is already a
prevalent use case). Is this interpretation correct?

For the second part of the bullet, I'm not sure why a client
connecting to server within the same host needs to be highlighted as
special case.  Rather a client is connecting to a server on the same
host, or on a different host should have the same semantics at the
network and transport layers I would think. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Tom

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:57:05 -0800

Hi, Tom,

> prevalent use case). Is this interpretation correct?

It probably would be more precise to say that "assigned port 
numbers...". It's fine to use ports for intra-machine communication, 
it's just that there should never be a need to reserve a port for that 
purpose.

> network and transport layers I would think. Am I missing something?

Port assignments are required for two machines to initiate 
communication; they need to know "where to meet".

Within a single machine, there are a variety of other methods to do that 
sort of thing - use a dynamic port and record it in a file, e.g. Thus 
intramachine comms can still use transport protocols, but need not have 
an assigned one to coordinate.

I'll see if I can insert "assigned" in the sentence above during the 
next edit round (in response to IESG review).

Thanks,

Joe