Refusing new registrations is what I meant by closing the registry.
Of course it is not possible to change the way deployed systems work
retrospectively.
The question was about a new protocol.
We are about to see several thousand new web services protocols being developed
per year. A port each would be idiotic. Expecting UDDI deployment is at this
point futile.
The solution that people are going to turn to is to use the existing dns as
deployed. Fortunately windows 2k uses srv extensively.
We should also promote the use of srv for existing protocols for configuration.
_pop3._tcp.example.com can only advertise the location of the pop server. Why
not use it and save me debugging mail config for friends and familly?
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr]
Sent: Mon Mar 20 03:06:23 2006
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Guidance needed on well known ports
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 02:09:47PM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 163 lines which said:
The Internet has a signalling layer, the DNS. Applications should
use it. The SRV record provides an infinitely extensible mechanism
for advertising ports.
I agree here but this means we should keep at least one well-known
port, 53.
IANA should be told to close the well known ports
registry. Applications should use DNS SRV records for service
location.
I agree with that rule for the *future* protocols. But it does not
help with current (and widely deployed) protocols. So, asking IANA to
refuse new registrations in the well-known ports registry is one
thing, shutting down the registry is another.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf