Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 25 August 2011 22:35 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 2CE4A21F8B4A for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.247
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.352, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ziA+5NBzvcJp for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1D921F8B44 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7PMaJGT025634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E56CE63.6000205@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:36:19 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
References: <CA7C1D3C.F753%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA7C1D3C.F753%joe.hildebrand@webex.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
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:35:30 -0000

On 8/25/2011 2:39 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> Piping up where my betters are discussing a bikeshed whose color matters to
> me.
>
> In order to set the bikeshed on fire:
>
> /etc/services is useless for modern application-layer protocols not only for
> Stuart's reasons, but also because the only port number that matters is
> 443/tcp.

Arguably, this could be:
	80
	443
	53

;-)

Yes, there's a different problem lurking there, one that Bryan Ford at 
Yale Univ. has been working on, among others.

Joe