Re: Marking TCP/UDP Port 109 as "Historic"

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Fri, 08 May 2020 05:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B6C3A03FF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2020 22:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aeUQNCfPKiak for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2020 22:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgw23-4.mail.saunalahti.fi (fgw23-4.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A1E03A0365 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 May 2020 22:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.8]) by fgw23.mail.saunalahti.fi (Halon) with ESMTPSA id e6d3687a-90eb-11ea-8ccc-005056bdfda7; Fri, 08 May 2020 08:22:25 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [172.29.2.3] (Lumi-2.eggert.org [172.29.2.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D63D87366C; Fri, 8 May 2020 08:22:19 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-A62F84F8-E95C-4DC8-BB7C-C437D417AC21"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Marking TCP/UDP Port 109 as "Historic"
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 08:22:18 +0300
Message-Id: <70BD7014-FC2B-4CCD-AE4D-70BE3233EB40@eggert.org>
References: <A3314D19-C902-4589-84F7-86B7530906F4@strayalpha.com>
Cc: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A3314D19-C902-4589-84F7-86B7530906F4@strayalpha.com>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 3D63D87366C.A3ACE
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cdZvtC_vX9YdrMjxSc9844iOZp8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 05:22:34 -0000

Unsurprisingly, I fully agree with Joe here.

-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

> On May 7, 2020, at 19:06, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> The request came from the IESG. I was asked about this in my role on the IANA ports review team. Below is my response to them.
> 
> Per RFC 6335, revocation is NOT RECOMMENDED.
> 
> Given this was a widely deployed protocol at some point, it’s unlikely we’ll catch all legacy deployments. In specific, here is software that was updated just LAST WEEK that currently supports POP2:
> https://www.fetchmail.info
> 
> As a result, I recommend AGAINST this action.
> 
> Further, there’s near zero utility to doing this; we have System ports available to assign if needed, we no longer recommend assigning them at all, AND even if it were revoked it would go to RESERVED until all others that have never been assigned are used.
> 
> (I urge the IESG to find better uses of their time, please)
> 
> Although I don’t think this is a bad thing individually, we really don’t need to waste time trying to “clean up” the ports registry in this manner.
> 
> That goes double - if not triple - for the recent request to transfer assigned system ports to the IETF Chair (Mirja’s draft).
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On May 7, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ps - who made the request?  (seems like a datum that would generally be useful to include in this type of review request)
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 7, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> The IESG has received a request to update the IANA "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number" registry to mark port 109 (POP2) as "Historic".  The specific changes proposed are as follows:
>>> 
>>> 1) Change the registration's Description field to read "Post Office Protocol - Version 2 (Historic)"
>>> 2) Change the Assignee to IESG (with link as shown for SMTP on port 25, for example)
>>> 3) Change the Contact to IETF Chair (also with link as shown for SMTP, for example)
>>> 4) Change the Assignment Notes to read "Originally registered by Joyce K.. Reynolds in RFC 937 (HIstoric)", with link preserved from the current Assignee/Contact column.
>>> 
>>> The community is invited to provide comments on this change.  We would like to move forward on or after May 31st, so if you have feedback to provide, please do so by then..
>>> 
>>> -MSK, ART AD
>> 
>