Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

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

 





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


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