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

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

OK, I looked on the wayback machine to see what I could find.

Snapshots of the repository referenced in RFC 1700 (
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port-numbers) indicate that it
moved to http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers on or before
2001-05-11. The earliest snapshot of that page was from 2001-06-04:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010604223215/http://www.iana.org:80/assignments/port-numbers

I also found an earlier snapshot from 2000-08-15 that was archived from
www.isi.edu:

https://web.archive.org/web/20000815053440/http://www.isi.edu:80/in-notes/iana/assignments/port-numbers

Both of them say:

The port numbers are divided into three ranges: the Well Known Ports,
the Registered Ports, and the Dynamic and/or Private Ports.

The Well Known Ports are those from 0 through 1023.

The Registered Ports are those from 1024 through 49151

The Dynamic and/or Private Ports are those from 49152 through 65535


So the current range for registered ports was in effect for more than a
decade prior to the publication of RFC 6335.

On that basis, the "corrected text" that I proposed is incomplete. Maybe
the following would be better:

OLD:

                                      [RFC1340
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1340>] also establishes the
   Registered range of 1024-59151, though it notes that it is not
   controlled by the IANA (at that point).  The list provided by
   [RFC1700 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700>] in 1994 remained
the standard until it was declared
   replaced by an online version, as of [RFC3232
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3232>] in 2002.


NEW:

                                      [RFC1340
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1340>] also established the
   Registered range of 1024-65535, though it noted that it was not
   controlled by the IANA (at that point).  The list provided by
   [RFC1700 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700>] in 1994 remained
the standard until it was declared
   replaced by an online version, as of [RFC3232
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3232>] in 2002.  At some

   time prior to that, the Registered range was changed to 1024-49151

   and the Dynamic/Private range of 49152-65535 was established.


Sigh ... this all started because I saw 59151 and thought it was just a
typo that should have been 49151.

Mike Heard

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:29 PM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>