Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page


The document provides guidance to protocol and application designers on 
best current practices for requesting and using ports; BCP status clearly 
conveys the nature, importance and relevance of that guidance.

Some  reviewers have noted that this application of BCP status
may not be aligned with their understanding of BCP status (RFC 2026,
Section 5) and/or with current IETF usage of BCP status in practice.

Since this is intended to document best practice and design recommendations
for areas beyond TSV, the IESG should consider whether BCP status is 
appropriate (e.g.,  vs. Informational status).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
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

Document Quality:
During document review the intended status was carefully considered. This
resulted in changes, omission of some material
and greater attention to the recommendations. This document is now thought
ready for publication by TSVWG.

Who is the Document Shepherd?
G Fairhurst (TSVWG Co-Chair)

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Spencer Dawkins (TSV AD)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the

The document shepherd reviewed this document, and the recommendations that
it makes. The shepherd,
and TSVWG reviewers think this is ready to be published. The document does
impact other IETF Areas
and was therefore subject to cross-area review during the initial WGLC. I
am happy that the comments
received during this process have adequately been addressed in the current

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took

Yes - The material on allocation of secure and non-secure ports, the
discussion of firewall interactions, and other matters,
means that this draft contains significantly more security material than
is typical for TSVWG drafts.
The chairs therefore recommend a security directorate review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
have already been filed. If not, explain why?

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
None are known

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent
the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or
does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document has been presented and discussed at IETF TSVWG meetings since
Production of a document on this topic had the strong support of TSVWG
when adopted after IETF-86, March 2013.

The ID completed a first WGLC completing in June 2014 including cross-area
review requests to RAI, APPS, and SEC Areas, and comments
received from people within an outside TSVWG. Comments were also received
from IANA.
This resulted in changes to the style of presentation and to the
recommendations, including ensuring that
the relationship to RFC 6335 was made more clear.

To confirm these changes the document subsequently had a second TSVWG WGLC
(14/10/2014, concluding 29/10/2014)
The second stage reviewers were D Black, G Fairhurst and E Lear. There
were no additional comments.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

Some references are marked by the tool as Obsolete, the document editor
and shepherd have reviewed these and checked these are correct.
As context, all obsolete references are cited in the section that
describes the history of ports. In many cases, the earliest occurrence
of an idea is cited in preference to later (in some cases obsoleting) RFCs.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document requires no actions from IANA

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.