Re: [yam] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?

Alexey Melnikov <> Tue, 19 January 2010 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE5B3A680B for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.364
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pr6rebkrhVTk for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07893A62C1 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:02:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:02:25 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Alfred � <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [yam] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:02:48 -0000

Alfred � wrote:

>Please note that the Transport Area is in the process to update
>the Port Numbers IANA registry -- see:
>  <>
>In pursuit of long-standing IESG recommendations, the new unified
>Service Names and Port Numbers registry will no longer allow
>multiple port numbers to be registered for a single conceptual
>service (and different service names for variants of a service),
>and it intends to start applying the new policy on legacy registry
>content during the planned (annual?) "garbage collection" phases
>that IANA will conduct in the future.
>So unless a specific use case can be shown to be supported by a very
>strong momentum, the registry garbage collection phases will perhaps
>some day start challenging the service name registrations and default
>port assignments for 'imaps' and similar "services over TLS" that do
>not use in-band security negotiation on the same port number as the
>basic service and hence do not conform to the new registry rules for
>service names and default port number assignment.
While I agree that imaps/pops wouldn't have been registered according to 
new rules, they represent widely deployed variants of IMAP/POP3, so I 
don't think IANA can just remove them from the registry.