IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-05]

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 27 January 2010 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF523A681B for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.956
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iXHHd560xboW for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f123.google.com (mail-yx0-f123.google.com [209.85.210.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7267A3A67DB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxe29 with SMTP id 29so37914yxe.5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DH6s9rDo89NZq1ygCWhdrE16KmSRj6ph0vhQ+w6vhBg=; b=v5AqY0rEgRIXNGrR4C8Qqlp/CDRoqrr3TuFrmb3lVp9mVXgqS6P2ysuhMA9TI0OsVK jWV/0hO97mmse8HeJwkg2ZoiFydbtVRgLWXmHCGMf5JxDtMFqrABXWylUGDrU1PsyZCy ykCqRsES70iBFD2lZxY3StGJVid3uG8B+Vho0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=OTWj2LZXyksXIwUVT02CjHI0mBrJl/5OHyASH0EHsMe0kGSHsEMpubwTTL1Pg3lb50 y6bCHuwydPL8gukmi/rpsKU5xGYma9tgPTadUA7ShuTNam9aCinnbVRhm1izAYF7zVIn atzh/fuYkN+wYO1iRatD/dlFjoUw/q26cNyIU=
Received: by 10.101.84.5 with SMTP id m5mr12650770anl.91.1264619512291; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?190.48.227.28? ([190.48.227.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm57179ywh.46.2010.01.27.11.11.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B608FEC.2090203@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:11:40 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>
References: <C77B4C32.1F9A5%michelle.cotton@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <C77B4C32.1F9A5%michelle.cotton@icann.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-05]
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:11:44 -0000

Michelle Cotton wrote:

> IANA assigns a requested port number if that port number is available.
> However there are many instances where folks come to IANA and request a
> certain port number because they have been using it  and it is already
> assigned to someone else.
> 
> We encourage coming to IANA first before “using” a port number.

Agreed, but, if IANA actually "assigns" rather than just "register" port
numbers in the "registered" port range, I guess some requests are
approved, and others are rejected... so I wonder what's the criteria for
that... in partcular when port numbers are used by "closed" protocols.

e.g., what has been the criteria for "assigning" say, these port numbers:


shockwave	1626/tcp  Shockwave
lofr-lm         1752/tcp    Leap of Faith Research License Manager
yo-main         4040/tcp   Yo.net main service
turbonote-1     39681/tcp   TurboNote Default Port

Have there any cases in which use of a port has been rejected? If so,
what has been that reason?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status