Assigning ports

"t.petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com> Thu, 15 September 2011 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <daedulus@btconnect.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 14EE121F869E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wXuEy5uDqiAe for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr07.btconnect.com [213.123.26.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F4F21F8560 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host109-153-79-81.range109-153.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([109.153.79.81]) by c2beaomr07.btconnect.com with SMTP id EJS36078; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:29:51 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <00de01cc7381$1059d580$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <4CF79432.8070508@ericsson.com> <008501cb92fa$dc1c1ba0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <7B685540-D448-43D1-98D9-5CCBD4A98692@nokia.com>
Subject: Assigning ports
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:25:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4E71C58F.0091, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.9.15.85715:17:7.586, ip=109.153.79.81, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_800_899, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, NO_URI_FOUND
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020C.4E71C590.0013, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 15 Sep 2011 09:27:44 -0000

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.  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 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?

Tom Petch