Re: [tsvwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7605 (5592)

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Sun, 06 January 2019 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1861D12D4EC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xsnj52TkoHjJ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700AB1288BD for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE9AE1B00253; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:56:10 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <5C324F4A.1080402@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:56:10 +0000
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
CC: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org, "Dr. Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu>, david.black@emc.com, heard@pobox.com, ietf@kuehlewind.net
References: <20190105223012.8117BB81F77@rfc-editor.org> <4279D66E-AFA3-4D1E-ABB8-1F7DF8FE0F01@strayalpha.com> <06ed0c8d-4a20-708c-bad3-fa6844a80797@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <06ed0c8d-4a20-708c-bad3-fa6844a80797@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/iLxaQFPHTu3bku_YCEn_Sq4oQDc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7605 (5592)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:56:25 -0000

The point I saw was that RFC 1340 states this range on p23:

"
The Registered Ports are in the range 1024-65535.
"

Gorry

On 06/01/2019, 04:26, Joe Touch wrote:
> PS - ephemeral ports were known before RFC 6335. RFC 6056 refers to them
> at least; I'm digging to see if there's an earlier reference.
> Joe
>
> On 1/5/2019 3:17 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Good catch, though IANA did *register* ports in the range 1024-63353. I’m not sure what it meant to “control” ports; in both the system and registered ranges, all IANA could ever do was register assignees.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2019, at 2:30 PM, RFC Errata System<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7605,
>>> "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport Port Numbers".
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5592
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Editorial
>>> Reported by: C. M. Heard<heard@pobox.com>
>>>
>>> Section: 3
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>>                                       [RFC1340] also establishes the
>>>    Registered range of 1024-59151, though it notes that it is not
>>>    controlled by the IANA (at that point).
>>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>>                                       [RFC1340] also established the
>>>    Registered range of 1024-65535, though it noted that it was not
>>>    controlled by the IANA (at that point).
>>>
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> RFC 1340 (and RFC 1700, the subsequent and final Assigned Numbers RFC) listed the upper end of the Registered port range as 65535. It was subsequently changed to 49151 by RFC 6335.
>>>
>>> Instructions:
>>> -------------
>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC7605 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-11)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport Port Numbers
>>> Publication Date    : August 2015
>>> Author(s)           : J. Touch
>>> Category            : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
>>> Source              : Transport Area Working Group
>>> Area                : Transport
>>> Stream              : IETF
>>> Verifying Party     : IESG