On 2/1/2011 10:29 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear.
This document has an affirmative statement against the use of multiple
ports for TLS.
I'm sorry, but it does not.
I states a goal, and a preference, and has plenty of wiggle room as I've
repeatedly quoted, and will quote again here:
This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA handles
the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry and
attempts to conserve the port number space. This description is
intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port
numbers. IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling
assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions
may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet.
AFAIK that statement is not part of present written policy. Is that correct?
See the word above "principles". That isn't policy.
IANA isn't bound by it (see the last sentence). The Expert Review team
is not bound by any written policy - RFC 5226 does not require that we
have one, and we don't.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf