Re: [tsvwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7605 (5592)

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Yes, as does RFC 1700. However, it was long before 6335 that the range was reduced to 48K, down from 64K. The only place to check, AFAICT, will be the Internet archive pages of IANA, other than RFCs...
Joe

> On Jan 6, 2019, at 10:56 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The point I saw was that RFC 1340 states this range on p23:
> 
> "
> The Registered Ports are in the range 1024-65535.
> "
> 
> Gorry
> 
> On 06/01/2019, 04:26, Joe Touch wrote:
>> PS - ephemeral ports were known before RFC 6335. RFC 6056 refers to them
>> at least; I'm digging to see if there's an earlier reference.
>> Joe
>> 
>> On 1/5/2019 3:17 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Good catch, though IANA did *register* ports in the range 1024-63353. I’m not sure what it meant to “control” ports; in both the system and registered ranges, all IANA could ever do was register assignees.
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 5, 2019, at 2:30 PM, RFC Errata System<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7605,
>>>> "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport Port Numbers".
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5592
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Type: Editorial
>>>> Reported by: C. M. Heard<[e-mail]>
>>>> 
>>>> Section: 3
>>>> 
>>>> Original Text
>>>> -------------
>>>>                                      [RFC1340] also establishes the
>>>>   Registered range of 1024-59151, though it notes that it is not
>>>>   controlled by the IANA (at that point).
>>>> 
>>>> Corrected Text
>>>> --------------
>>>>                                      [RFC1340] also established the
>>>>   Registered range of 1024-65535, though it noted that it was not
>>>>   controlled by the IANA (at that point).
>>>> 
>>>> Notes
>>>> -----
>>>> RFC 1340 (and RFC 1700, the subsequent and final Assigned Numbers RFC) listed the upper end of the Registered port range as 65535. It was subsequently changed to 49151 by RFC 6335.
>>>> 
>>>> Instructions:
>>>> -------------
>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC7605 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-11)
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Title               : Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport Port Numbers
>>>> Publication Date    : August 2015
>>>> Author(s)           : J. Touch
>>>> Category            : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
>>>> Source              : Transport Area Working Group
>>>> Area                : Transport
>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>