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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'm not on the yam list and this is the first message in this thread that I was CC'ed on. It seems like you are suggesting changes to draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports, but due to the lack of context I'm at a loss as to what they are...

Lars

On 2010-1-20, at 10:54, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> On 01/19/2010 11:47 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Sigh. We've attemped this sort of purity policing many times in the past. The
>> results can be summarized quite simply:
>> 
>>     IT DOES NOT WORK
> 
> IMO it works acceptably for new usage. It fails grandly when it tries to 
> squeeze toothpaste back into the tube, but that's different.
> 
> Port 993 was a mistake IMO, but it's best to acknowledge our past 
> mistakes, not sweep them under the carpet. Port 993 still exists, 
> remains in use, and the name imaps refers to it. I don't like that, but 
> I also don't think an IANA registry can list either 993 or imaps as 
> being free for other use.
> 
>>> Please read draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04 and comment on the
>>> TSVWG list, if you want.  Releated discussion also happend on the
>>> apps-discuss at ietf dot org mailing list.
> 
> My suggestion would be to add a section to that draft grandfathering 
> ports 465, 993, 2000 and a few more (adding as much negative verbiage as 
> seems wise; I don't think the exact amount makes any difference at all). 
> IIRC port 2000 can be grandfathered a half-dozen times.
> 
> I didn't see a comment address in the draft, so I cc this message to the 
> authors.
> 
> Arnt