Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Re: Assigning ports - reference updates

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 23 September 2011 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E29D21F8CB6 for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVR+gJ+wWhkZ for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D612A21F8CBD for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [207.151.140.15] ([207.151.140.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8NIk1uB007159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E7CD3EA.1010003@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:46:02 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <CA9F674C.229F8%pearl.liang@icann.org> <4E7AE2FB.8060004@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E7AE2FB.8060004@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Re: Assigning ports - reference updates
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of updates to service name and transport protocol port registry <port-srv-reg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/port-srv-reg>
List-Post: <mailto:port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:44:15 -0000

I agree, FWIW...

On 9/22/2011 12:25 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like option 1 better as the actual rule for assignment are in fact all
> in RFC 6335, nowhere else. You already need to know what you are using
> your service name to to know what to ask for.
>
> cheers
>
> Magnus
>
> On 2011-09-21 19:05, Pearl Liang wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> As per Joe, Tom petch (daedulus@btconnect.com) indicated that, since
>> RFC6335 has been approved, it should replace all references cited in the
>> IANA service Name and Port Number registry.  We think that we should
>> include RFC2782 in addition to RFC6335 for SRV Names since RFC6335 only
>> updates 2782.  We are checking with you if anyone has any objections to
>> going forward with using RFC 6335 as the reference.  And if there is one
>> please provide your suggested remedy.  Below describes the current text
>> and proposed changes: (sorry it's a bit lengthy.)
>>
>> The current text in the 'Note' section located at
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-po
>> rt-numbers.xml is:
>>
>> OLD:
>> Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>> documented in [RFC952].
>>
>> Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges: System
>> Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>> Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described in
>> [RFC6335]. System Ports are assigned by IETF
>> process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC1340].  User Ports
>> are assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" process, as per
>> [RFC5226].  Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>>
>> The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>> described in [RFC6335].
>> /snip/
>>
>> The proposed NEW text:
>>
>> Option 1:
>> Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>> documented in [RFC6335].
>>                ^^^^^^^^^
>> Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges: System
>> Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>> Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described in
>> [RFC6335]. System Ports are assigned by IETF
>> process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC6335].  User Ports
>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>> are assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" process, as per
>> [RFC6335].  Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>> described in [RFC6335].
>> /snip/
>>
>> Option 2:
>> Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>> documented in [RFC2782] and [RFC6335].
>>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges: System
>> Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>> Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described in
>> [RFC6335]. System Ports are assigned by IETF
>> process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC6335].  User Ports
>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>> are assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" process, as per
>> [RFC6335].  Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>> described in [RFC6335].
>> /snip/
>>
>> Any other suggestions?  Please let us know how we can make the changes.
>>
>> Thank you in advance,
>> ~pearl
>>
>
>