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

Pearl Liang <pearl.liang@icann.org> Fri, 23 September 2011 19:11 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 3391E21F8D18 for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 AmZLb9i-JN3a for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7582621F8D17 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:14:00 -0700
From: Pearl Liang <pearl.liang@icann.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:14:56 -0700
Thread-Topic: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Re: Assigning ports - reference updates
Thread-Index: Acx6JPKMFV0AKKeTR3OTSF+UoxA7sw==
Message-ID: <CAA2283E.22C51%pearl.liang@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E7CD3EA.1010003@isi.edu>
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
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 19:11:26 -0000

This is done.  

Cheers,
~pearl

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:46:02 -0700
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: pearl liang <pearl.liang@icann.org>rg>, "port-srv-reg@ietf.org"
<port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Re: Assigning ports - reference updates

>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
>>>
>>
>>