Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

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

 



On 2016-01-20, at 23:41, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> - those which are not services, but are duplicates of HTTP
> 
> 	these are the "I really wanted port 80, but it's already
> 	taken, but I need to run my own web server so users can
> 	open a browser window to see how to monitor or configure
> 	my device"
> 
> 	these have been turned down, but not at any astounding rate.
> 	They are declined as duplicates of HTTP, the same way that
> 	requesting your own DNS port or NFS port would be.
> 
> What we really need is a way for many interfaces to be able to
> "register" with their local web server, to reserve URL prefixes, etc.

Right. Or the ability to run multiple web servers on different ports in a way that results in a priori known URLs, such as result from assigning unique ports and then including them in the URLs. (That is why I earlier in the thread proposed to start allowing service names in addition to ports in URLs.)

Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


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