Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-known-ports-00.txt

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

> > From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 
> > (2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does 
> > _not_ assign
> >     values - it just registers uses claimed by others.  Eliminating
> >     well-known ports eliminates any assignment role, and 
> > leaves us with
> >     just a registry of what people have claimed.  Note that this means
> >     there is no mechanism which prevents the same number from being
> >     registered by more than one registry.
> 
> So how is a server to support two services that happen to have chosen the sam
> e port number?
> 
> I think that what is indicated here is that service discovery by port number 
> is broken and no longer scalable. 
> 
> There are only 65536 possible port numbers, we expect to see rather more Web 
> Services become established. We have 10,000 registrations already. This is a 
> failed discovery strategy.
> 
> The scalable discovery strategy for the Internet is to use SRV records. For t
> his to be possible it has to become as easy to register an SRV code point as 
> it is currently to register a port. It makes no sense for there to be more re
> strictions on issue of the unlimited resource than on the limited one.
> 
> Getting an SRV code point registered is not a trivial task and there is in fa
> ct a parallel non-IANA registry already operating because most people cannot 
> be bothered to deal with the IETF process. It should not be necessary to writ
> e an RFC or go through the IESG to register a code point. The implicit assump
> tion here is that the IESG controls the Internet through control of discovery
>  aparatus, a silly notion that the other Internet standards bodies are not go
> ing to accept.

	There was never any intention of making getting SRV labels hard.

	The reason for the RFC was to handle *existing* protocols and to
	handle protocols which wished to use the fields in a non standard
	manner.

	Retrofiting SRV usage into a existing protocol is not straight
	forward.  
	http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-andrews-http-srv-01.txt
	is a attempt to retrofit SRV into HTTP.

	Designing a new protocol to use SRV should be straight forward.
	I would expect it to be about 1 paragraph in the new protocol's
	description.

> If the W3C or OASIS develops a spec for a Web service it makes no sense for t
> hem to then be required to write an RFC and the group be required to grovel t
> o the IESG and worse be held captive by the IESG work schedule. Not going to 
> happen, nor does it. People who want SRVs cut in those groups just do it.
> 
> 
> > I do _not_ support the introduction of a charging model, for 
> > a couple of 
> > reasons.  First, I don't want to see port numbers become a 
> > politicized 
> > commodity, like IP address space and domain names have.
> 
> I think this is a very bad idea at this stage. At this point introducing char
> ging is more likely to lead to speculation and premature exhaustion of the su
> pply.
> 
> 
> > (*) Some years ago, there was a period of time lasting 
> > several months when 
> > users of a particular large network provider were unable to 
> > communicate 
> > with CMU, because that provider had usurped 128.2/16 for some 
> > private use 
> > within its network. 
> 
> This particular weakness with the allocation of IPv4 addresses is likely to b
> e exercised with increasing frequency when the IPv4 address store begins to r
> each exhaustion. 
> 
> One can well imagine that a large ISP operating in Asia might decide that rat
> her than pay an exhorbitant amount to buy another 4 million addresses it migh
> t just make a private agreement to divy up net 18 (18... = MIT) and make a pr
> ivate agreement with its neighboring ISPs to do so.
> 
> The bad effects resulting from such practices hardly need to be stated. If we
>  are lucky people will go for the Class D and Class E space first. But that i
> s going to upset some people (Mbone users for instance).
> 
> 
> The governance mechanisms of the Internet assume a degree of authoritarian co
> ntrol that simply does not exist. It is goodwill rather than authority that k
> eeps the Internet together.
> 
> My theory (which I make no appologies for acting on) is that Vint Cerf and Jo
> n Postel intended the mechanisms set up to control and allocate to act as the
>  Gordian knot.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf