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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

is this an issue that needs to be resolved before a revision of port-randomization can be posted? (I'm trying to get as many drafts as possible moving before the next IETF...)

Thanks,
Lars

On 2010-1-27, at 21:11, Fernando Gont wrote:

> 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: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> 
> 
>