In article <78de18b9-e893-8bb9-2d6c-ca3fa7d95cbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >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. For once I agree with Keith. If the IESG wants to deprecate ports assigned to dead protocols, that's fine, but it should do them as a group, not via Consensus Water Torture. A quick look at the ports registry suggests that there are thousands of private assignments made over a decade ago, of which many are surely abandoned. It could be an interesting but very time consuming exercise to try and identify to whom the assignments were made, and if they still are in use. >However, IMO, ports declared Historic should not be subject to immediate >reassignment for other purposes. Perhaps after 10 years? That's already the rule. R's, John
