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

Pearl Liang <pearl.liang@icann.org> Wed, 21 September 2011 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <pearl.liang@icann.org>
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 C349611E80EC for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vtqWKBjjdaJF for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E529811E808C for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:04:04 -0700
From: Pearl Liang <pearl.liang@icann.org>
To: "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:05:00 -0700
Thread-Topic: Re: Assigning ports - reference updates
Thread-Index: Acx4gHd5ZWgemDbRQ4iI64eUTIPkfA==
Message-ID: <CA9F674C.229F8%pearl.liang@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:01:39 -0000

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


On Fri Sep 16 11:19:54 2011, touch@ISI.EDU wrote:
> Hi, Pearl,
> 
> There has been a suggestion to just cite RFC 6335 on this web page
> wherever refs are needed, since it supercedes these other docs, and
> already cites them where needed.
> 
> If you agree, please update accordingly.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 9/15/2011 2:53 PM, Pearl Liang wrote:
> > Hi, Joe,
> >
> > As for the reference for the service name, should we change to these
> > three, rfc2782, 5226, and 6335 since Stuart's table cited rfc2782 as a
> > reference for SRV names?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > ~pl
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Touch via RT<iana-ports@iana.org>
> > Reply-To: "iana-ports@iana.org"<iana-ports@iana.org>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:43:21 -0700
> > Subject: [IANA #488714] Fwd: Re: Assigning ports
> >
> >>
> >> Thu Sep 15 21:43:21 2011: Request 488714 was acted upon.
> >> Transaction: Ticket created by touch@ISI.EDU
> >>        Queue: IANA-Ports
> >>      Subject: Fwd: Re: Assigning ports
> >>        Owner: Nobody
> >>   Requestors: touch@ISI.EDU
> >>       Status: new
> >> Ticket<URL: https://request.iana.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=488714>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi, Pearl,
> >>
> >> See below. The references could use updating...
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: Assigning ports
> >> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:40:32 -0700
> >> From: Joe Touch<touch@isi.edu>
> >> To: t.petch<daedulus@btconnect.com>
> >> CC: Lars Eggert<lars.eggert@nokia.com>, tsvwg<tsvwg@ietf.org>,
> >> Magnus Westerlund<magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
> >>
> >> Hi, Tom,
> >>
> >> On 9/15/2011 1:25 AM, t.petch wrote:
> >>> Now that RFC6335 has been published, the IANA page on how to get a
>port
> >>> assigned
> >>> has been updated (take a good book if you want to access it:-( but
>the
> >>> text
> >>> there leaves me confused.
> >>>
> >>> It says
> >>> "System Ports are assigned by IETF process for standards-track
> >>> protocols, as per
> >>> [RFC1340]"
> >>> which, RFC1340 being ' Assigned Numbers. J. Reynolds, J. Postel. July
> >>> 1992'
> >>> confuses me.
> >>
> >> It's a reference to the original definition of System Ports.
> >>
> >>> Should this instead refer to RFC6335 or RFC5226? (I suspect that
> >>> the former is the better reference even if to make sense of it you
>must
> >>> access
> >>> the latter).
> >>
> >> It might be useful to cite all three.
> >>
> >>> It also says
> >>> "Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
> >>> documented in [RFC952]"
> >>> which, RFC952 being ' DoD Internet host table specification. K.
> >>> Harrenstien,
> >>> M.K.
> >>>        Stahl, E.J. Feinler. October 1985. '
> >>> also confuses me.   Should this instead refer to RFC6335 or RFC5226?
> >>
> >> Yes - probably both there as well.
> >>
> >> I'll forward this to IANA for update.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
>