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

Hi,

you really don't need a system port. A registered port should suffice.
And using a system port is likely to cause a DISCUSS by the IESG.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of badra@isima.fr
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 2:53 PM
> To: netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over 
> TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
> 
> 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 over
> TLS.  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