Re: [port-srv-reg] System ports existence

Will do.

I think don't think it belongs on the broader list, largely because IMO 
it's out of scope for this doc.

Here's my response, FWIW (to be posted when I land):

-------

This doc is intended to be clearly focused on procedural issues:

	- unifying the registries
	- updating the procedures

Although we mention some principles of allocation, that discussion 
doesn't change anything; the principles are not binding, and they're 
just generally conservative and exceptions will obviously occur.

The idea of deprecating the separate meaning and handling of the system 
ports belongs in a separate proposal, and we're not advocating that at 
this time.

Joe

On 12/1/2010 1:05 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We do have one WG last call comments that hasn't been dealt with yet.
> That is Paul and Eliot's desire to kill off the system ports range and
> only have one assignable range 0-49151.
>
> Can you please engage in the discussion on the TSVWG mailing list. I am
> also wondering if we need to put this discussion on the ietf@ietf.org list.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg