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

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]>]

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