Re: Assigning ports

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Touch" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Magnus Westerlund" <[e-mail]>; "tsvwg"
<[e-mail]>; "Lars Eggert" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:40 PM


> Hi, Tom,
>
> On 9/15/2011 1:25 AM, t.petch wrote:
> > Now that RFC6335 has been published, the IANA page on how to get a port
assigned
> > has been updated (take a good book if you want to access it:-( but the text
> > there leaves me confused.
> >
> > It says
> > "System Ports are assigned by IETF process for standards-track protocols, as
per
> > [RFC1340]"
> > which, RFC1340 being ' Assigned Numbers. J. Reynolds, J. Postel. July 1992'
> > confuses me.
>
> It's a reference to the original definition of System Ports.
>
> > Should this instead refer to RFC6335 or RFC5226? (I suspect that
> > the former is the better reference even if to make sense of it you must
access
> > the latter).
>
> It might be useful to cite all three.

Joe

I think it would be wrong to have any mention of RFC1340.  Its description of
ports and their allocation procedures is plain wrong and would mislead.  It was
(of course) obsoleted by RFC1700 which in turn was obsoleted by RFC3232 except
that that says that the website is now authoritative - which it isn't - RFC6335
is:-).

I have a feeling that RF6335 should have obsoleted or updated one or two more
RFC but no matter; getting the IANA web site right seems the most important
thing.

Tom Petch

>
> > It also says
> > "Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
> > documented in [RFC952]"
> > which, RFC952 being ' DoD Internet host table specification. K. Harrenstien,
> > M.K.
> >       Stahl, E.J. Feinler. October 1985. '
> > also confuses me.   Should this instead refer to RFC6335 or RFC5226?
>
> Yes - probably both there as well.
>
> I'll forward this to IANA for update.
>
> Joe
>