Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Guidance for port number use (#495)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

@hardie hit on an issue that I thought about a bit, but as long as we go to TCP first, I can't see QUIC having any role here.  The URI scheme kinda determines that.  This is why I understand why @MikeBishop wants to mint a new scheme, but it doesn't make me any more inclined to think that it will succeed.

As for running services on ports <1024, as long as you have root access once, it's possible to run a userland service, see https://serverfault.com/a/112798 for example.  Most servers use setuid() instead, of course.  That suggests to me that issues with running as root is completely workable from a security perspective.

The ossification question seems to be the most relevant question.  I agree with Ted about the value for WebRTC in having an unmodified protocol.  Though we might find some of the mechanisms we build are duplicative and so we have to disable certain things (consent to send is pretty tightly integrated into WebRTC; we have very little of that in QUIC now, but probably will build *something*).

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/495#issuecomment-299350939