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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

If we're going to recommend or otherwise encourage changing ports, then that's definitely going to have an impact on manageability.  Not just from the perspective of "how do I identify QUIC", but also from the perspective of "how do I deploy a server using QUIC" - for the reasons @MikeBishop describes.

There are a bunch of subtle issues about authoritative use here that get gnarly.  I don't think that these are insurmountable issues, but we would need to be careful, and I've been stung on this before.  Alt-Svc was not the doddle I originally imagined.

The port that can speak for a name over HTTP is now carried in a whole different protocol.  There are now quite a few protocols that rely on mapping from a name to a URL using `.well-known`, which wouldn't work for QUIC without a well-known port.  In a way we would be strengthening our reliance on our fallback protocol if we insist on randomizing.

As Mike notes, it is much, much easier if we leave things as they are.  Maybe that doesn't cause ports other than the one we nominate to loosen up, but it would be good to understand what perceived benefits derive from that.  For someone looking to use other ports, more use of non-443 ports might be good, but it's rare that the need is "use a particular port number" as opposed to something else.  Understanding what that something else might be would probably help.



-- 
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-299097860