|
Two points here.
First, I totally agree with Phillip that closing
the registry is the right direction to head. It would be lovely if this became a
consideration in new protocol work at the IETF. I'm not sure how quickly we can
actually close it, but having a chosen and stated direction that points
somewhere else seems very appropriate for new protocol work. Please note how
long it is taking to kill the classful addressing terminology. If you want to
change directions on port number interpretation, please start
soon..
Second, as long as the current mechanism is "widely
used" (and, with the rise of HTTP-as-transport and port-agile protocols, it's
less widely used every day anyway), people try to use the current mechanism to
understand and characterize traffic on their networks (you may laugh, and it is
getting funnier every day, but they do exactly this with firewall rules,
protocol analyzers - and the good ones DON'T use port numbers much any more -
and traffic monitors).
The definition of an application port is what the
two ends of the application think it is. If I think that port 25 is a good port,
you do, too, and we never use it for anything else, why is this wrong? It seems
to me that saying, "if you want to understand what the traffic on this network
looks like, our direction is that you'll need to check SRV records most of the
time in the future" seems to give people who do firewalls, traffic monitors,
etc. the right signal as well.
Thanks,
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 6:13
AM
Subject: Re: Guidance needed on well
known ports
Refusing new registrations is what I meant by closing the
registry.
Of course it is not possible to change the way deployed
systems work retrospectively.
The question was about a new
protocol.
We are about to see several thousand new web services
protocols being developed per year. A port each would be idiotic. Expecting
UDDI deployment is at this point futile.
The solution that people are
going to turn to is to use the existing dns as deployed. Fortunately windows
2k uses srv extensively.
We should also promote the use of srv for
existing protocols for configuration. _pop3._tcp.example.com can only
advertise the location of the pop server. Why not use it and save me debugging
mail config for friends and familly?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer@xxxxxx]
Sent:
Mon Mar 20 03:06:23 2006
To: Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
Cc:
ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
Guidance needed on well known ports
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 02:09:47PM
-0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
a message of 163 lines which said:
> The Internet has
a signalling layer, the DNS. Applications should
> use it. The SRV
record provides an infinitely extensible mechanism
> for advertising
ports.
I agree here but this means we should keep at least one
well-known
port, 53.
> IANA should be told to close the well
known ports
> registry. Applications should use DNS SRV records for
service
> location.
I agree with that rule for the *future*
protocols. But it does not
help with current (and widely deployed)
protocols. So, asking IANA to
refuse new registrations in the well-known
ports registry is one
thing, shutting down the registry is
another.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing
list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|