Eliot Lear wrote:
Jeff,
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before reading this
thread. However, I have now read it, so feel prepared to comment.
As it only just came out, you haven't missed much of a debate.
(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 point of the document is NOT really to deal with scarcity but to
deal with an outdated process, and to attempt to encourage use of SRV
records where appropriate, and to have some documentation for the port
use. ...
SRV records are not equivalent to either assigned or mutually-negotiated
ports; they would require extra messages, extra round-trip times, and/or
extra services (DNS) beyond what is currently required.
There are other ways to reduce the limits of the current port space, as
well as to reduce the dual-registration of service names (which are
unique) and port numbers. See: draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00.txt
(FYI there is a pending update that includes more detail on the
difference between this and Tim Shepard's dynamic port reassignment
proposal from 2004)
Further discussion on this has already ensued on the TCPM WG mailing
list, whose archives may be a useful resource as well.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf