Thanks for you feedback/questions! Please see below. > On 27. Feb 2020, at 22:15, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > At 07:44 AM 10-02-2020, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the >> following document: - 'Reassignment of System Ports to the IESG' >> <draft-kuehlewind-system-ports-04.txt> as Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2020-03-09. Exceptionally, comments may > > Is there an explanation why this document is an (intended) Proposed Standard? Actually this is a good point. For this document the state is not obvious I think. RFC6335 is BCP which didn’t seem appropriate for this doc but informational seemed to lax as it requests actions on a registry. However, I definitely could be convinced that informational is more appropriate as all actions are covered by RFC6335 procedures and this document is really only meant to provide most transparency to the community about any actions taken and as historical documentation for later times. > > The procedures for managing the port number registry are defined in RFC 6335. Are the procedures defined in RFC 6335 for reassignments/revocations incorrect or unworkable? What is the relationship between this document and RFC 6335? As I said above the draft intends to initiate actions within the procedures defined in RFC6335 and it meant for documentation and transparency purposes only. > > Why is the IETF Chair being proposed as the point of contact? This is inline with what required in RFC6335 for ports that are assigned by IETF Review, so we adopted the same here. Mirja > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
