On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:38 -0800, Eliot Lear wrote: > This therefore leads to two questions for the community: > > 1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the IANA > do away with the distinction? > 2. If they are not archaic, under what circumstances should they be > allocated? new protocols can not rely on the security the priveleged ports provide, but there are still many such protocols in use (e.g. LPD, port 515), and so the distinction is useful for administrators configuring userspace' access to ports on workstations. > My own opinion: > > They are archaic and the distinction should be dropped. Many operating > systems do not make the distinction (particularly special purpose ones) > and those that do would be better off providing a finer grain control > over what processes can bind to ports. in 2006, if there are DOS or other problems with a protocol which can be "solved" by using priveleged ports, it shouldn't be published. so it should be a "don't care" which block is used for allocation these days. -- Kjetil T. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf