Again, ports are not deprecated. They’re deassigned (at most) but wouldn’t be reused until we run out anyway. Ports do have informal notes; there’s nothing bad (or worthwhile either, IMO) about updating those notes. It’s fine to add and easy enough if someone wants to waste their time. However, that should not imply also transferring ownership to the IETF. That’s a separate step that IMO should be handled on a case-by-case basis as needed. We should entertain a process change in bulk ONLY after the IETF *demonstrates* that the load of per-case changes is too high. Right now, the load of considering the change is itself too high, IMO. Joe > On May 7, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/7/2020 12:35 PM, John Levine wrote: >> For once I agree with Keith. If the IESG wants to deprecate ports >> assigned to dead protocols, that's fine, but it should do them as a >> group, not via Consensus Water Torture. > > > I think this is the right way to think about it. We should get consensus on a policy rather than discussing each and every port individually. "Ports assigned to historic protocols will be marked historic without requiring additional community consultation" seems like a good policy to me. > > It's worth noting that there has already been some groundwork done here; and although community feedback indicates a need for changes to its contents, draft-kuehlewind-system-ports seems like a good place to add this general policy (along with the other changes that community feedback has indicated). It's also worth noting that this document does exactly what John proposes: it proposes to mark a group of ports (including 109) as Historic. > > /a >
