--On Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:32 -0700 Joseph Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. And that goes to one of the concerns about definitions in my prior long note. If it is worth noting in the registry that the _protocol_ associated with a registration is historic, then go for it, but be sure the terms used and/or definitions in the registry make it clear that "historic" is about the protocol, not the registration. As Joe sort of suggests, that could probably be automated with a little tooling work. It also wouldn't accomplish much. There is, AFAICT, so such thing as making a _registration_ historic without de-assigning the port number. We've been told this isn't about de-assigning the number, so there is, at least, some confusion. And, if the number is not de-assigned, discussions about when and how it can be reused do not seem relevant, at least to me. best, john
