Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-known-ports-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On May 24, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 03:11:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, the distinction between well known ports and just assigned ports is outdated. The overarching theme of the document is that the IANA should
be treated as a group of adults

Heh.  :-)

and that they should use some discretion
with oversight only where needed.

Careful here...

(1) The IANA is a group of adults, but it is no longer a group of
   protocol subject matter experts.  IMHO there is probably no need
   for IESG oversight of port number allocation, especially if we are
eliminating the (artificial) scarcity of so-called well-known ports.

The scarcity of ports is not artificial. There are only 16 bits of port space and changing the number of bits in ports will be ... interesting.

(2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does _not_ assign
   values - it just registers uses claimed by others.

This is not accurate. The IESG has been explicit in that IANA assigns port numbers (both well known and user), it does not register use.

Second, I believe that having a complete, accurate registry of port numbers is highly valuable.

As do I.  It does not currently exist.

That means that they won't be known to network administrators or network traffic analysis tools,

Of course, the port registry does nothing to stop any protocol using any port.

It might be useful to figure out what function folks expect the IANA port registry to perform.

Rgds,
-drc


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]