[TLS] Re: RFC 9460 HTTPS non-default port on the public Internet? (attrleaf)

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

I would not be surprised if `port` is essentially unused at present.
It was included principally for parity with SRV, and may be more
relevant in future (non-HTTP) protocol mappings.  I believe that some
major clients support it, and others do not.  (Both behaviors can be
compliant, if the whole record is ignored when it appears.)

--Ben Schwartz

On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 1:56 PM Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> There're ECH various test things at test.defo.ie
>
> Feel free to ping off-list if it's non-obvious.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> On 26/07/2026 15:58, Jesse Wilson wrote:
> > Yuri and I are working on SVCB + ECH stuff for OkHttp. We’ve got the happy path working.
> >
> > I’m currently looking for real-world, public Internet examples to test interop. https://tls-ech.dev has been excellent here, particularly because it exercises some failure modes.
> >
> > I’m looking for an HTTPS site on a port other than 443 that has an HTTPS resource record. For example, the RFC includes a sample record for https://example.com:8443/:
> >
> > ```
> > _8443._https.example.com. IN HTTPS 1 alt3.example. (port=9443 alpn=h2,h3 foo=... )
> > ```
> >
> > If you have a sample, please share!
> >
> > I’d also be happy to skip it if it’s not used in practice! I fetched the HTTPS records for a million domains on the default port and found that most service parameters are very rarely used. The port showed up only once <https://www.nslookup.io/domains/airnewzealand.co.nz/dns-records/https/>, and it was redundant.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > – Jesse
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]