Hi,
On May 24, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 03:11:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear
<lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yes, the distinction between well known ports and just assigned
ports is
outdated. The overarching theme of the document is that the IANA
should
be treated as a group of adults
Heh. :-)
and that they should use some discretion
with oversight only where needed.
Careful here...
(1) The IANA is a group of adults, but it is no longer a group of
protocol subject matter experts. IMHO there is probably no need
for IESG oversight of port number allocation, especially if we are
eliminating the (artificial) scarcity of so-called well-known
ports.
The scarcity of ports is not artificial. There are only 16 bits of
port space and changing the number of bits in ports will be ...
interesting.
(2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does _not_
assign
values - it just registers uses claimed by others.
This is not accurate. The IESG has been explicit in that IANA
assigns port numbers (both well known and user), it does not register
use.
Second, I believe that having a complete, accurate registry of port
numbers is highly valuable.
As do I. It does not currently exist.
That means that they won't be known to network administrators or
network traffic analysis tools,
Of course, the port registry does nothing to stop any protocol using
any port.
It might be useful to figure out what function folks expect the IANA
port registry to perform.
Rgds,
-drc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf