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

"Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com> Thu, 09 October 2008 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <netconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-netconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FDD3A69B9; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D8C3A683D for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.966
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xBqEoNLeuKh9 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFCF3A69B9 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m99F82wu009148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:08:02 +0200
Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (webmail.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m99F825q008067; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:08:02 +0200
Received: from DEMUEXC005.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.17]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:08:02 +0200
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:07:59 +0200
Message-ID: <A294F5A3E722D94FBEB6D49C1506F6F7EA6198@DEMUEXC005.nsn-intra.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
Thread-Index: AckprCaJSAVXD6seReCSNeqBGfgnpQAYkKSAAASPmAA=
From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
To: washam.fan@huawei.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2008 15:08:02.0924 (UTC) FILETIME=[D34EB2C0:01C92A20]
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Checked for Spam by eleven - eXpurgate www.eXpurgate.net
X-purgate-ID: 151667::081009170802-40306BB0-63895983/0-0/0-15
X-purgate-size: 3308/0
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: [Netconf] FW: system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
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:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: netconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: netconf-bounces@ietf.org

 
Hi Washam,

the answer to the question is on the IANA web site.
Please check: http://www.iana.org/protocols/apply/

Cheers, 
Mehmet
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext 
> fanhuaxiang 90002624
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:12 AM
> To: badra@isima.fr
> Cc: netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf 
> over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
> 
> 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: badra@isima.fr
> 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: netconf@ietf.org
> 
> > 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
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf