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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

thanks for the summary.

On 2010-1-20, at 11:28, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Lars Eggert writes:
>> 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...
> 
> Tthe thead in a nutshell: The iana-ports document says "one port for 
> each purpose" etc.

yes - as a guideline for *new* assignments. No existing assignment is modified by this document. (Maybe we need to explicitly say this if we aren't already.)

> IMAP, POP3 and perhaps SMTP, however, exist in two. 
> 993 ("imaps") and 143 ("imap") for IMAP. Everyone on the list dislikes 
> port 993. The question is whether port 993 should survive in the IANA 
> registry.

It should and it will.

> My suggestion for the iana-ports document is to permit more than one 
> port in those cases where that's currently deployed, and apply the 
> one-port-per-purpose rule only to new allocations.

Exactly. The intent is not to revisit past assignments and check whether they comply with the new rules.

> My rationale for that is that the extra ports/service names aren't 
> really free. You can't use port 993 or service name imaps for anything 
> else, and IMO that's reason enough to keep it in the registry.

Exactly.

Lars

> The same argument applies to pop3s/995, and perhaps to smtps/465 (smtps 
> is falling out of use).
> 
> Arnt