Hi, Eliot,
THanks a lot for your timely response! In-line...
On 11/12/20 09:23, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Fernando,
Thanks for your quick response. I’d say that we are pretty much in
line.
Just double-checking: should we note "transport protocol ephemeral port
numbers" to avoid the possible confusion?
One additional comment:
Note that we do *not* target service ports. Those ports are not
"transient numeric identifiers", because the server-side port has
overloaded semantics (it identifies the service) -- so it *has* to be
a specific value. Only if, say, a system were using something ala e.g.
SRV records, servers could use "transient numeric identifiers”.
Along with considering perhaps a tweak or two based on the previous
message,
Please do let me know if suggested tweak would make the document more
clear. And also if there are others to apply. -- I'm all for improving
the document if possible!
I hope we can collaborate over time on the privacy aspects of
service discovery that might further reduce the need for the port registry.
Definitely!
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
