| Note also that RFC7605 deprecates the assignment of system ports anyway:
>> Developers SHOULD NOT apply for System port number assignments
because the increased privilege they are intended to provide is not
always enforced.
So all of this is moot.
Note also that we’re suggesting - at most - that there be a *note* that the protocol is historic (this can be done for all currently historic), but really that’s irrelevant anyway. We don’t even have all ports tied to their corresponding RFCs either.
Overall, this is all unnecessary, IMO.
Joe
See my quote from RFC 6335. Of course re-assignment of de-assigned ports would only happen after all never-assigned ports, of the same type, have been assigned. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 07/05/2020 15:19:
>> The community is invited to provide comments on this change. We would
>> like to move forward on or after May 31st
> Please do. POP2 hasn't been seen in the wild for decades.
I agree!
Is there a timeline by which port 109 could be reassigned?
Would we just put this at the end of the list of unassigned <1024 ports?
Or is that a separate decision?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
|
