[pim] Re: [IANA #1455973] expert review for draft-ietf -pim-gaap (service-names-port-numbers)

Hi David,

Thank you very much for review and advise. The authors discussed this at
length and we prefer to keep our own dedicated allocation since GAAP's
implementation and collision detection model already work correctly with a
protocol specific port and we'd rather not take on a dependency on a draft
that's still in progress.

mike

On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 11:14 AM David Dong via RT <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear Authors/ADs/Chairs,
>
> Following up on this; please see below for (advisory) comments from a port
> expert for draft-ietf-pim-gaap-18:
>
> --
>
> I recommend this be revised to use the multicast application port number
> assigned per draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port.
>
> That draft recognizes that multicast services are already sufficiently
> differentiated by IP address and thus assigning new port numbers for
> multicast services is not necessary.
>
> --
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Dong
> IANA Services Sr. Specialist
>
> On Fri Jul 24 21:29:28 2026, david.dong wrote:
> > Dear Authors/ADs/Chairs,
> >
> > Please see below for (advisory) comments from a port expert for draft-
> > ietf-pim-gaap-18:
> >
> > --
> >
> > I recommend this be revised to use the multicast application port
> > number assigned per draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port.
> >
> > That draft recognizes that multicast services are already sufficiently
> > differentiated by IP address and thus assigning new port numbers for
> > multicast services is not necessary.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > David Dong
> > IANA Services Sr. Specialist
>
>

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]