Re: Marking TCP/UDP Port 109 as "Historic"

[Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx>]

RFC 6335, Section 8.2, "IANA

   should not reassign port numbers that have been de-assigned until all
   unassigned port numbers in the specific range have been assigned."

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:01 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 5/7/20 10:19 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> The IESG has received a request to update the IANA "Service Name and
> Transport Protocol Port Number" registry to mark port 109 (POP2) as
> "Historic".  The specific changes proposed are as follows:
>
> 1) Change the registration's Description field to read "Post Office
> Protocol - Version 2 (Historic)"
> 2) Change the Assignee to IESG (with link as shown for SMTP on port
> 25, for example)
> 3) Change the Contact to IETF Chair (also with link as shown for SMTP,
> for example)
> 4) Change the Assignment Notes to read "Originally registered by Joyce
> K.. Reynolds in RFC 937 (HIstoric)", with link preserved from the
> current Assignee/Contact column.
>
> The community is invited to provide comments on this change.  We would
> like to move forward on or after May 31st, so if you have feedback to
> provide, please do so by then..
>
> -MSK, ART AD

Since there are very many Historic protocols with port assignments, I
propose that IESG be authorized to declare a port assignment Historic
without soliciting community input, if the latest version of the
protocol specification has already been (re)classified Historic by an
IETF Consensus action - (unless the document declaring the specification
Historic specifies another disposition for the port).   That way we
don't have to have a separate discussion for every such protocol.

However, IMO, ports declared Historic should not be subject to immediate
reassignment for other purposes.  Perhaps after 10 years?

Keith