Re: Reminder: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 - 26th November 2010

Magnus Westerlund <> Wed, 01 December 2010 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E3028C0E3 for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:00:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S4RQjNThHIP4 for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4203A6C00 for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:00:44 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bafae000002a42-d8-4cf60f05bc0b
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 79.7D.10818.50F06FC4; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:01:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:01:56 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:01:56 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; sv-SE; rv: Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: Reminder: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 - 26th November 2010
References: <> <p06240827c9108fb7d7f0@[]> <> <p0624089fc912ec9557a7@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p0624089fc912ec9557a7@[]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: tsvwg WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:00:46 -0000

WG, Paul and Eliot,

I will respond in detail. However, I do need to do a bit of history
digging and and go review the fairly big discussion that was held on the list back in 2006 that was started by Eliot Lear.

The threads of relevance appears to be:

Elliot's individual draft:

Maybe Eliot can summarize what was the reason his effort failed to gain
sufficient traction to be published?



Paul Hoffman skrev 2010-11-24 17:27:
> At 5:17 PM +0100 11/24/10, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Paul Hoffman skrev 2010-11-22 23:14:
>>> In general, this document seems fairly worthwhile. I have a two reservations, however:
>>> - There is no justification for retaining the differentiation between System Ports and User Ports. Given the wide disparity in assignment rates, I would have thought that this would be a good time to say "there is no longer a difference". The text in 8.1 doesn't explain the difference in a way I could discern. At a minimum, this needs to be covered in much more detail in sections 7.1 and 7.2.
>> My personal view is that I agree that there really are no significant
>> difference between the two ranges. There has traditionally been a
>> perceived difference between the two ranges.
> That is only because *we* said there was a difference.
>> Also, isn't there still
>> some difference in what rights are needed on a number of unix systems to
>> install a listener?
> Not in any sane system, no.
>> So I think the difference is in peoples heads. The
>> registration rules do require you to clearly motivate why you should be
>> given a port in the system range.
>> In chapter 6, there is the following text:
>>    Such confirmation of intended use is
>>    especially important when these ports are associated with privileged
>>    (e.g., system or administrator) processes.
>> For the difference in allocation rates there is a reason why there such
>> a low rate for "System" ports, and that is due to the high bar that
>> already is set by the port expert reviewers.
>> We are trying to focus on getting the new registry and its structure in
>> place. Rather than changing all details, like if the system port range
>> should be removed. There was previous discussion on this in IETF without
>> any consensus so we haven't been interested in driving this.
> If not now, while the registry is open, when?
>> I think removing the system ports range is beyond our intentions with
>> this document. Secondly, we can try to clarify the difference between
>> system and registered range.
> In the IETF, tomorrow's tomorrow is never.


Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: