Re: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)

[fanhuaxiang 90002624 <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
could anybody tell me what is the exact difference between system port and registered port.what is the qualification for applications to hire system port or registered port?
If we figure it out, it is easy to conclude 'netconf over TLS' suiable to system port or registered port.

washam

******************************************************************************************
 This email and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whosFrom [e-mail]  Wed Oct  8 18:12:06 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969D43A6C1C;
	Wed,  8 Oct 2008 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1253A6C1C
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed,  8 Oct 2008 18:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.243
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id FRQokYV98oEL for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed,  8 Oct 2008 18:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga01-in.huawei.com (usaga01-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.211])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D393A6896
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed,  8 Oct 2008 18:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6])
	by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14
	(built Aug
	8 2006)) with ESMTP id <[e-mail]> for
	[e-mail]; Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.17.1.36])
	by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14
	(built Aug
	8 2006)) with ESMTP id <[e-mail]> for
	[e-mail]; Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.1.18] (Forwarded-For: [10.27.141.6])
	by szxmc04-in.huawei.com (mshttpd); Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:12:25 +0800
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:12:25 +0800
From: fanhuaxiang 90002624 <[e-mail]>
In-reply-to: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Message-id: <[e-mail]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug  8 2006)
Content-language: el
Content-disposition: inline
X-Accept-Language: el
Priority: normal
References: <[e-mail]>
	<00bb01c92265$a9c7ba90$[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<001301c9230c$7ed77940$0601a8c0@allison>
	<[e-mail]>
	<000c01c923aa$054cc6e0$0601a8c0@allison>
	<[e-mail]>
	<001901c923e5$9b2d73e0$0601a8c0@allison>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was
 WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Hi,
could anybody tell me what is the exact difference between system port and registered port.what is the qualification for applications to hire system port or registered port?
If we figure it out, it is easy to conclude 'netconf over TLS' suiable to system port or registered port.

washam

******************************************************************************************
 This email and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained here in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
 *****************************************************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008 2:54 am
Subject: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
To: [e-mail]

> Dear all,
> 
> During the syslog WGLC of syslog-tls, there was a discussion about 
> the use
> of a registered or a system port for the initial version of syslog 
> overTLS.  The consensus was that a dedicated port should be requested.
> 
> Regarding "Netconf over TLS" document:
> 
> On the one hand, some Netconf WG members recommended reviewing the
> discussion in the syslog WG to see whether the compliance 
> requirements for
> "Netconf over TLS" are consistent with the syslog-tls proposal, 
> which uses
> a registered port.
> 
> On the other hand, the Netconf WG already assigned system ports for
> NetConf over SSH, SOAP and BEEP and the question is why to don't 
> use a
> system port for TLS?
> 
> The question for the WG to reach a consensus is: do we need a 
> system port
> or just a registered port for "Netconf over TLS"?
> 
> Please express you preference on the list for one of these two 
> options by
> the WGLC deadline.
> 
> As a contributor and author, I'd vote for a registered port.
> Best regards,
> Badra
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf


e address is listed above. Any use of the information contained here in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
 *****************************************************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008 2:54 am
Subject: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
To: [e-mail]

> Dear all,
> 
> During the syslog WGLC of syslog-tls, there was a discussion about 
> the use
> of a registered or a system port for the initial version of syslog 
> overTLS.  The consensus was that a dedicated port should be requested.
> 
> Regarding "Netconf over TLS" document:
> 
> On the one hand, some Netconf WG members recommended reviewing the
> discussion in the syslog WG to see whether the compliance 
> requirements for
> "Netconf over TLS" are consistent with the syslog-tls proposal, 
> which uses
> a registered port.
> 
> On the other hand, the Netconf WG already assigned system ports for
> NetConf over SSH, SOAP and BEEP and the question is why to don't 
> use a
> system port for TLS?
> 
> The question for the WG to reach a consensus is: do we need a 
> system port
> or just a registered port for "Netconf over TLS"?
> 
> Please express you preference on the list for one of these two 
> options by
> the WGLC deadline.
> 
> As a contributor and author, I'd vote for a registered port.
> Best regards,
> Badra
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf