I do not support this proposal, on the basis that it seems its
intent is to extend the scope of the APNIC whois database well
beyond its traditional scope.
I believe the purpose of the APNIC database is to assert the
authorisation of an assignee to use specified IP addresses, for
purposes such as route validations or route dispute resolutions. The
database only relates to the network layer identifiers that APNIC is
chartered to administrate (i.e. IP addresses and AS numbers).
APNIC does not administrate or register the use of transport-layer
identifiers (TCP or UDP ports); APNIC does not have the charter to
state that certain TCP/UDP ports have been duly assigned and provide
any authority for their use. Also, standard Internet routing does
not function on the basis of TCP/UDP ports.
I therefore feel that any recording of any TCP/UDP port assignments
would be outside of the scope of APNIC's business.
Regards,
David Woodgate
On 1/03/2015 11:30 PM, Ajay Kumar
wrote:
Personally,I don't see any benefit,which community may be
getting after accepting this proposal. I don't support this
proposal.
Regards,
Ajai Kumar
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy