RE: Application for port-number (system-klensin) (revised) (fwd)

["Michelle S. Cotton" <cotton@icann.org>]

Thomas,

To answer your question here:

I.e., if John had asked for a regular port number,
would the IESG have even been asked about it?

The answer is no.  User port numbers have a different
procedures for review.  In most all cases a RFC or
IESG approval is NOT needed.

Michelle


-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Thomas Narten
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:16 AM
To: hardie@qualcomm.com
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Application for port-number (system-klensin) (revised)
(fwd) 


> I see no reason why this needs to be a system port,

I wonder about that too. If the request was for a regular port, would
we even be having this discussion?

But I'm also wondering of the utility in distinguishing between system
ports and regular ports these days, so I'm not so sure we should care
that much. Russ/Steve: can you comment on whether system ports are
meaningful anymore in this day and age? They correspond to the ports
that one needs to run as "root" on some systems in order to use.

I'll also note that much of what Ted seems to be concerned about
relates to whether the protocol is baked and is ready for prime
time. I wonder if we need to clearly separate that issue from the
request for a port. I.e., if John had asked for a regular port number,
would the IESG have even been asked about it?

Thomas