Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by yxe29 with SMTP id 29so37914yxe.5 for ; 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 Message-ID: <4B608FEC.2090203@gont.com.ar> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:11:40 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michelle Cotton References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: tsvwg 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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