Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-14

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mon, 06 April 2020 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630363A010D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 09:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mf3gTi9fv40X for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8213A00E1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 09:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GF-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 701261B0012D; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:25:42 +0100 (BST)
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <CALx6S345Ta5LjSkZ+XmNmH8dxKnM++VRCej2iGxfdUqDc+M-Jw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045652C80DB5348A5A3505F83C70@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36yzDTLaxUhWibZjmK5Cxu2zfzxiawFRCbVn9aPF4rs1A@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045E873D0908044343F8C2283C40@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <42914e6a-5602-7911-7447-e400d36eb0e6@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <MN2PR19MB404585DB4796DD1EF29FDF0C83C50@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <6CC67993-37FF-4B02-A45A-4F30E9D6686C@strayalpha.com> <fc94ff59-4972-3960-7c25-85f8953463f9@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <62B8E2A9-2347-44E2-8B14-DD3CD81937AB@strayalpha.com>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <737cf948-065b-0702-ca15-6cc216d73bc9@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:25:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <62B8E2A9-2347-44E2-8B14-DD3CD81937AB@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4A24AA3C87A0E23926FD7192"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/13VXZRwNxQwBM0rBU46EIc8UmNA>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-14
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 16:25:48 -0000

On 06/04/2020 16:00, Joseph Touch wrote:
> Notes below...
>
>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 3:23 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> On 05/04/2020 23:50, Joseph Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 5, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com 
>>>> <mailto:David.Black@dell.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> ...
>>>> OLD
>>>>     UDP-based protocols often do not use well-known port numbers.
>>>> NEW
>>>>     UDP-based protocols often do not use well-known port numbers,
>>>>     and use of a well-known port number is not limited to the
>>>>     protocol for which the port is well known [RFC7605].
>>>
>>> RFC7605 doesn’t say this, or at least most of this.
>>>
>>> Yes, there’s no rule that well-known port numbers are used. But 
>>> that’s not either unique to nor biased towards UDP vs TCP.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>
>> I understand, I think we can mention RFC7605 in 3.1.1 by adding this 
>> to the para about ports to read something like:
>>
>> "In some uses, an assigned transport port (e.g., low-numbered port)
>>
> (e.g., 0..49151)
>
> [I would avoid the term ‘low-numbered’, which could be interpreted 
> as meaning 0–1023]
>
>>  identify the protocol [RFC7605]. However, port information alone is 
>> not sufficient to guarantee identification. Applications can use 
>> arbitrary ports and do not need to use well-known port numbers. The 
>> use of a well-known port number is also not limited to the protocol 
>> for which the port is well known.
>>
> Well-known often implies System.
>
> As per RF7605, I’d encourage the use of “assigned” for the entire 
> range from 0..49151.
>
> Joe
>
>
OK. We now have:

In some uses, an assigned transport port (e.g., 0..49151) can
identify the protocol [RFC7605]. However, port information

alone is not sufficient to guarantee identification....


Gorry