Re: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09: How we have resolved WG last call comments

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 02 December 2010 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 487F528C144 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 06:03:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 uuAVAwghX5+2 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 06:03:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA37A28C141 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 06:03:49 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bafae000002a42-8c-4cf7a7901e5d
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 32.B9.10818.097A7FC4; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:05:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [147.214.183.21] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:05:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4CF7A790.4090206@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:05:04 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09: How we have resolved WG last call comments
References: <4CF79432.8070508@ericsson.com> <4CF796A9.9070608@cisco.com> <7A4B44A1-8A53-4819-82A2-5583D52218B4@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <7A4B44A1-8A53-4819-82A2-5583D52218B4@nokia.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:03:51 -0000

Lars Eggert skrev 2010-12-02 14:58:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2010-12-2, at 14:52, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> This is a distinction without a difference.  Nobody cares anymore about
>> the port range, and the argument is circular, if it was every really
>> stable to begin with.  This distinction was made at a time when perhaps
>> the only port in use over 100 (not 1000) was RIP, with the assumption
>> being that services would be registered.  That flew out the window
>> largely with X, and then out of the planet with Windows, and out of the
>> solar system with mobile devices.  Please.  Let's move this distinction
>> into history, where it belongs.
> 
> Assume we got rid of the distinction between ports larger and smaller than 1024 like you're asking us to. IANA just treats them the same, i.e., FCFS with Expert Review.
> 
> Assume that someone asks for a port number. IANA rolls the dice and gives them 842.
> 
> They put that in their code and all of a sudden realize that on many platforms, they need to ask the user for admin rights in order to bind to that port.
> 
> They won't be happy.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Because in practice, on many systems, it DOES matter if you have a low port or not.
> 
> (So instead what we do is we limit the FCFS range to 1024-49151 and make people who think they want a low port go via the IETF.)
> 

Eliot,

>From a practical point of view we still need to treat the <1024 ports
special. We don't get rid of these systems quickly even if we say: This
was a stupid idea, don't do it, treat them all the same. Thus we need
special assignment rules anyway.

If we want IETF to publish a document, saying this was bad idea. Fine,
but lets not do it in this document. The fix to the service name
registry has been long awaited. Lets try to avoid further delay.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------