HI, I added a little history in-line to help inform comments on the intended status. > Hi, Alexey, > > On 1/16/2015 11:16 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> > ... >> My concerns is that BCP are commonly used by ADs to enforce compliance. >> So I am wondering why this document is not just Informational? > > AFAIR, the WG wanted it to be BCP to be a stronger recommendation to > protocol designers than would be an Informational doc. > Yes the document was marked BCP on 2011-01-26 after WG discussion and advice from our ADs, but this was not based on offering advice to IANA (as in RFC 6335), but rather guidance to protocol and applications designers needing to use transport ports Gorry > However, the way expert review and the appeals process already allows > ADs to either use BCPs or override them anyway, so I don't see this as > unduly constraining them. Besides, all sorts of docs - including > standards-track - are contradictory, so there's no one way to ensure > they're all followed. > > ... >>>> In 7.4: > ... >>>> Inserting "solely" before "by a browser" would address my concern. >>> Would "primarily" also work? It's hard to argue "solely" even for >>> conventional web access. >> >> Yes, "primarily" is actually better. > > OK. Will do. > >>>> In 7.4: >>>> >>>> Note however that a new service might not be eligible for IANA >>>> assignment of both an insecure and a secure variant of the same >>>> service, and similarly IANA might be skeptical of an assignment >>>> for >>>> >>>> I don't think use of wording like "IANA might be skeptical" is correct >>>> here, because IANA doesn't define policy on this. IETF does. So let's >>>> call things with right names and don't misuse "IANA" here. >>> >>> The document isn't written by IANA. We recommend to IANA, and IANA >>> makes >>> a decision that the IESG can override. I don't think it's outside the >>> scope of the doc to indicate this context. >> >> Actually I disagree. IANA is just following procedure prescribed by >> IETF. Experts are not really acting as advisors (although in practice >> there is always a dialogue, which is as it should be). > > IANA doesn't have to agree with expert reviewer recommendations. There > isn't anything binding that, though - as you note - there's a dialogue > and it's not an issue in practice. > >>> Would it be preferable to say that "applications asking for both... >>> might not be approved when..."? >> >> Yes. > > OK - will do. > >>>> an insecure port number for a secure service. In both cases, >>>> security of the service is compromised by adding the insecure port >>>> number assignment. >>>> >>>> Similarly (in the same section): "IANA currently permits ..." >>> Same solution here? >> >> Sure. > > OK - will do. > > Joe >