Re: [dns-privacy] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8932 (6629)

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021, RFC Errata System wrote:

> Original Text
> -------------
> One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
> numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
> original port was ephemeral (>=1024) or nonephemeral (>1024).
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
> numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
> original port was ephemeral (>=1024) or nonephemeral (<1024).
>
> Notes
> -----
> Nonephemeral port numbers are <1024
>
> --- Verifier note ---
> The errata is indeed a real typo. As it is in appendix, "held for document update" was selected.

I agree with the typo fix, but I think it is also wrong to call all
ports > 1024 ephemeral. This is not the case. According to

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml

 	Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges: System
 	Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
 	Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described in
 	[RFC6335]

Operating systems have used a different definition though, as can be
seen at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeral_port#Range

Perhaps instead of ephemeral/non-ephemeral, a fix would be:

 	One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
 	numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
 	original port was a system port (<=1024) or non-system port (>1024).

Paul