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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 20 January 2010 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690B53A685B for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:22:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JaZqFDZMFuF for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047233A68FE for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0KEK3WZ013864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:20:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:20:01 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <>
References: <> <> <> <> <m/> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: o0KEK3WZ013864
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:49:05 -0800
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <>, Michelle Cotton <>, Lars Eggert <>,
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:22:04 -0000

Hash: SHA1

Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>>> 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.
> Deployment consideration is AFAIK the one and only reason to specify
> this usage.  I'm not asking for a definitive answer, but does the
> revocation procedure not give us a reason to discourage its usage
> altogether using at least some warning language?  It might be a
> flight of fancy, but if in a decade's time the world has migrated to
> IPSec, for instance, we'll be left with lots of obsolete port
> assignments and no documentation for them, which IMO is not so good.
> Would like to think that, although we must not break existing
> deployments, we should try to observe current and future reservation
> guidelines.

The new ports doc provides a revocation procedure that could be used if
needed here, but the ports doc isn't the place where any such individual
decision would be made. That would happen after the ports doc were approved.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)