Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-14

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 05/04/2020 23:50, Joseph Touch wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 5, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Black, David <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> The text on ports is in Section 3.1.1 of the draft - it makes a lot 
>> of sense to refer to it rather than cover the same territory again, 
>> so mea culpa for overlooking that text.  Also, in 20/20 hindsight, 
>> “more effort” was not the right word choice to convey “more involved” 
>> or “more complex” – besides, it’s better to simply point out that the 
>> transport protocol has to be identified in order to use its headers.
>> ...
>> OLD
>>     UDP-based protocols often do not use well-known port numbers.
>> NEW
>>     UDP-based protocols often do not use well-known port numbers,
>>     and use of a well-known port number is not limited to the
>>     protocol for which the port is well known [RFC7605].
>
> RFC7605 doesn’t say this, or at least most of this.
>
> Yes, there’s no rule that well-known port numbers are used. But that’s 
> not either unique to nor biased towards UDP vs TCP.
>
> Joe

I understand, I think we can mention RFC7605 in 3.1.1 by adding this to 
the para about ports to read something like:

"In some uses, an assigned transport port (e.g., low-numbered port) can 
identify the protocol [RFC7605]. However, port information alone is not 
sufficient to guarantee identification. Applications can use arbitrary 
ports and do not need to use well-known port numbers. The use of a 
well-known port number is also not limited to the protocol for which the 
port is well known. "

Gorry