Joe, Thanks. And more or less as expected although it is good to have the data and analysis. john --On Saturday, July 13, 2024 02:09 -0700 touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi, all, > >> On Jul 11, 2024, at 9:15 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> To respond quickly to a couple of other comments: >> >> * I hope and assume Brian was joking, but... Unless we intend >> to create a new division of the Protocol Police, with Global, >> maybe interplanetary, enforcement authority and mechanisms to >> immediately disconnect or imprison any user who dares to try >> to use the protocol and to fine any developer who dares to >> including a Telnet client or interface in its offerings, >> making Telnet historic would not get port 23 back. Instead, >> it would create serious interoperability problems as soon as >> something else tried to use that port for another purpose. > > Wearing the hat of IANA ports review team lead, please note that > the process for port deassignment is defined in Sec 8.2 of RFC 6335. > > Given the widespread deployment of telnet, even moving it to > historic today would have no effect on the potential reassignment > of port 23. The port would still be assigned to telnet until there > were sufficient evidence that the port were not in use - and even > then, it would be at best marked Reserved until a need arose, e.g., > we run out of unassigned ports. > > As a fun statistic, since the development of BCP165 (RFC6335 and > RFC7605), the allocation rate has been very stable at 15/year. > Given our current pool of over 41K unassigned user ports, we > won't need to reuse de-assigned ports for over 2,700 years. > > Joe > > — > Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist > www.strayalpha.com >
