[port-srv-reg] explanatory text on http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Thu, 14 January 2010 11:53 UTC
Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 4F4573A683D for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>;
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:53:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SU2kVGpNnRUc for
<port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35C53A68A8 for
<port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com
[10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP
id o0EBr8dF014973; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:53:16 -0600
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by
vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:52:49 +0200
Received: from mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.1.48]) by
esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:52:50 +0200
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com
[172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with
ESMTP id o0EBqmS9012934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA
bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:52:48 +0200
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at fit.nokia.com
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-40--452567357;
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:52:37 +0200
Message-Id: <C156BA68-AFBA-4771-8F5E-F6B5DCB1C97B@nokia.com>
To: iana-port-experts@icann.org, port-srv-reg@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3
(mail.fit.nokia.com [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:52:38 +0200 (EET)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2010 11:52:50.0189 (UTC)
FILETIME=[18D1ABD0:01CA9510]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: [port-srv-reg] explanatory text on
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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, 14 Jan 2010 11:53:43 -0000
Hi, I've recently had reason to look at the explanatory text (i.e., the bits that aren't port listings) on http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. Either I'm misunderstanding things badly, or the text is out of date and out of sync with how we handle things. It also has some other oddities. Here is the entire text (minus the actual listings). Comments and questions inline: > PORT NUMBERS > > (last updated 2010-01-11) > > The port numbers are divided into three ranges: the Well Known Ports, > the Registered Ports, and the Dynamic and/or Private Ports. > > The Well Known Ports are those from 0 through 1023. > > DCCP Well Known ports SHOULD NOT be used without IANA registration. > The registration procedure is defined in [RFC4340], Section 19.9. This SHOULD NOT is not specific to DCCP. But the text in RFC4340 is not super clear. I actually believe it means to say "you SHOULD NOT use port numbers already allocated for TCP or UDP for DCCP without registering this use with IANA first." In any event, it is a bit odd to see this test here and nothing about TCP/UDP/SCTP. > The Registered Ports are those from 1024 through 49151 > > DCCP Registered ports SHOULD NOT be used without IANA registration. > The registration procedure is defined in [RFC4340], Section 19.9. Same comment as above. > The Dynamic and/or Private Ports are those from 49152 through 65535 > > A value of 0 in the port numbers registry below indicates that no port > has been allocated. The only instance I can find is spr-itunes. I guess this will turn into a service name registration after draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports is done? > ************************************************************************ > * PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: * > * * > * IESG STATEMENT TO THE IANA * > * THE IESG BELIEVES THAT IANA MAY ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL PORT IN * > * THE 'USER PORT' RANGE TO PROTOCOLS WHOSE CURRENT PORT ALLOCATION * > * REQUIRES ACCESS TO A PRIVILEGED PORT. THIS ALLOCATION SHOULD NOT * > * BE AUTOMATIC, BUT MAY OCCUR UPON APPLICATION BY AN INTERESTED * > * PARTY WHOSE APPLICATION WOULD OTHERWISE FIT IANA'S POLICIES. * This should probably be merged into draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports, or the document that explains the procedure of the ports-review team. > * 1. UNASSIGNED PORT NUMBERS SHOULD NOT BE USED. THE IANA WILL ASSIGN * > * THE NUMBER FOR THE PORT AFTER YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPROVED. * Does this only apply to the Well Known range, or also to the Registered Range? Because it conflicts with text in the description of the Registered range (see below.) > * 2. ASSIGNMENT OF A PORT NUMBER DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPLY AN * > * ENDORSEMENT OF AN APPLICATION OR PRODUCT, AND THE FACT THAT NETWORK * > * TRAFFIC IS FLOWING TO OR FROM A REGISTERED PORT DOES NOT MEAN THAT * > * IT IS "GOOD" TRAFFIC. FIREWALL AND SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD * > * CHOOSE HOW TO CONFIGURE THEIR SYSTEMS BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF * > * THE TRAFFIC IN QUESTION, NOT WHETHER THERE IS A PORT NUMBER * > * REGISTERED OR NOT. * > ************************************************************************ > > > WELL KNOWN PORT NUMBERS > > The Well Known Ports are assigned by the IANA and on most systems can > only be used by system (or root) processes or by programs executed by > privileged users. > > Ports are used in the TCP [RFC793] to name the ends of logical > connections which carry long term conversations. For the purpose of > providing services to unknown callers, a service contact port is > defined. This list specifies the port used by the server process as > its contact port. The contact port is sometimes called the > "well-known port". > > To the extent possible, these same port assignments are used with the > UDP [RFC768]. This intro needs to be rephrased for SCTP and DCCP. The bit about calling the contact port the well known port is confusing, because contacts ports can obviously also be registered ports. > The range for well-known ports managed by the IANA is 0-1023. > > Port Assignments: > > Keyword Decimal Description References > ------- ------- ----------- ---------- > ... > > > REGISTERED PORT NUMBERS > > The Registered Ports are listed by the IANA and on most systems can be > used by ordinary user processes or programs executed by ordinary > users. > > Ports are used in the TCP [RFC793] to name the ends of logical > connections which carry long term conversations. For the purpose of > providing services to unknown callers, a service contact port is > defined. This list specifies the port used by the server process as > its contact port. > > The IANA registers uses of these ports as a convenience to the > community. This is the statement I have the most issues with. So if this a "convenience" to the community, we should not even be reviewing these requests. If this is true, anyone can just take numbers out of this range. My interpretation is that this might have been the case when this text was written, but that these days IANA treats the Well Known and Registered ranges the same, except for a higher review bar for Well Known registrations. We need to correct this if this is true. > To the extent possible, these same port assignments are used with the > UDP [RFC768]. > > The Registered Ports are in the range 1024-49151. This doesn't say "managed by IANA" like the equivalent text for the Well Known range does. Oversight or deliberate? Does IANA believe they have management rights for the Registered range? (I believe you do.) > Port Assignments: > > Keyword Decimal Description References > ------- ------- ----------- ---------- > ... > > > DYNAMIC AND/OR PRIVATE PORTS > > The Dynamic and/or Private Ports are those from 49152 through 65535 Lars
- [port-srv-reg] explanatory text on http://www.ian… Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] [IANA-Port-Experts] explanator… Eliot Lear
- Re: [port-srv-reg] [IANA-Port-Experts] explanator… Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] [IANA-Port-Experts] explanator… Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] [IANA-Port-Experts] explanator… Lars Eggert