IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sun, 06 January 2019 04:26 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
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 34582130FB5 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 20:26:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 4H-evKim7eAi for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 20:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4108130EE2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 20:26:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:References:Cc:To:From:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=xIOV/RmqeJEKC8TIOwt1bINo6EVEdhaTXwtt65hMBOA=; b=5pYD7ch1pV1goVXtN5EJvJdOsx 7WqHBl7zhFE95gX5mwfFDRNg1QXEtRAkhNNWQan7bUEvdXnGWpjgnVlFFOy6wHIWHNdcALTlIalPz k8XmkKTN6zZTKuJWVvhzHMjvG46iLLUm/YgzAmePHu82WIUnDjGh3Jz+PqUeBNzJg3iqu352WXA/v 1zK1mrTpYAPSHzORKhQrnk0oL5fGlpj9n/nfbrxDAbuTni0MaqR08kd26PE3agpKU71kpZ1G7iFS3 SAHNS37b19+IjGGM3z9x/K1YkuT4ZEK9B/+hF4wgVqc1y0V67OhcaQo9mB5vQMI3uEHBn7QocbuQz b6wYRHPw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:62491 helo=[192.168.1.250]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1gg018-003Xfo-4q; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 23:26:33 -0500
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: "Dr. Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, ietf@kuehlewind.net, david.black@emc.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Wes Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, heard@pobox.com, tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <20190105223012.8117BB81F77@rfc-editor.org> <4279D66E-AFA3-4D1E-ABB8-1F7DF8FE0F01@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <06ed0c8d-4a20-708c-bad3-fa6844a80797@strayalpha.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 20:26:29 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4279D66E-AFA3-4D1E-ABB8-1F7DF8FE0F01@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/mM8csqAIoCZzw8-oRDtbaR7czI0>
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 04:26:37 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email