Re: bernstein's protocol

[Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>]

> Can someone please enlighten me as to why we are wasting time and
> energy dealing with what protocol should run on port 113? Aside from
> the fact that I believe the protocol is technically flawed, whether
> you call it rfc931, authd, ident, or tap, the volume of the discussion
> and time spent on it by far exceeds the volume of the specs and the
> time that would be needed to write ten implementations of each.

I believe the point here is that one does not orphan working protocols and
"de-facto" standards, even if technically flawed, unless there is a good
reason for doing so.

I've seen nothing on this list which substantiates a "good reason" other
than personal vendetta (there CERTAINLY is not shortage of "well known"
ports right now to force the use of port 113).

> Now, if Bernstein and his friends want to use their version instead of
> what came out of the IETF ident WG, it's their problem. Not every
> protocol running on the Internet has IETF/IESG/IAB approval, and no
> Network Police is going to stop them. If he is so upset with the way
> we operate, why is he seeking our approval?

Perhaps because he is upset (and, IMHO, rightly so) that a committee has
decided to place an incompatible protocol on top of a known and used
namespace (in this case tcp port 113)?  I think that's plenty of reason 
to complain, and loudly.

> With all the problems facing the Internet, one would think that our
> time would be better spent on other things.

Right.  If that was the purpose of the IETF WG in question then why not
assign a different port number and be done with the controversy?  I find 
it interesting that they would choose to "step on" users of the existing 
port 113 mechanism.

I believe that it would be in the Internet's best interest if this working
group were to assign a different, non-conflicting port number for their
proposed protocol.  This WG has the power to put out the flame-war with
a simple declaration.  I can't see a >technical< reason for choosing port
113; I can see plenty of politically-motivated reasons, and frankly, I think
those have no place in a standards committee.

If there is a technical reason for using port 113 then let's hear it.  I
can't imagine what that reason might be unless the intention was to maintain
backward compatability -- which is clearly not the case from the
descriptions I have seen published here.  If, however, the reason is simply 
to step on someone who is an "outsider" from the WG process then I find these 
actions without merit and deserving of public criticism.

-- 
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions