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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert wrote:

> On 2010-1-19, at 19:23, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> In my understanding, this is actually wrong: IANA does officially
>>>  assign ports in the 1024-49151 range, exactly as they do for the
>>>  0-1024 range. The only distinction is that historically, the
>>> lower ports were considered privileged, because you needed
>>> special permissions to bind to them on many platforms.
>> Has IANA actually assigned all the ports listed in the port-number
>> file that fall into that range??
> 
> Yes.

What has been the criteria for assigning port numbers for e.g. closed
protocols? (other than just registering their use)



>> Or did they simply register them (i.e., "Hey IANA, I'm using port
>> number X for my app... would you include it in your port-numbers
>> file?")
> 
> As far as I know, ports in both the Well Known and Registered ranges
> have been subject to Expert Review for at least five years and
> probably much longer. I have never heard that IANA registered ports
> on first-come-first-serve basis in any range.

What type of expert review has been made on, say,
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? And what has been the criteria for actually
"granting" the use of ports (as the above)?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1