I read the draft to say that there would only be one port allocated - I took
strive to mean that Joe would deny my port requests for two ports. If the
intention is actually for the draft to say that it strives for one port but
allows assignment of two where the that is what the protocol design desire,
then I have no problem. Perhaps we just need to clarify what "strive" means.
This definition of "strive" leads into exactly my other complain that this
draft provides no guidance on what the expert will or will not approve.
We probably need to adjust text like
o IANA strives to encourage the deployment of secure protocols, and
so strives to avoid separate assignments for non-secure variants
and
The use of separate
service name or port number assignments for secure and insecure
variants of the same service is to be avoided in order to discourage
the deployment of insecure services.
and
Services are expected to include support for security, either as
default or dynamically negotiated in-band.
In band negotiation of security is applicable for some cases, but it adds
latency, bandwidth, and complicated multiplexing in non session based
transports. I think this is a bad idea in many cases. I also view separation
even for stream based protocols as something that helps management and
debugging as well as policy.
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:17 , Magnus Westerlund wrote:
We have extensive discussion on this in the WG last call. There was no
consensus for having two ports. At the same time we did also have no
consensus on mandating one port for any future protocol. Thus we
adjusted the text to say in Section 7.2:
IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service or
application
To my knowledge "strive" is not a binding RFC2119 term. I also think it
is a good trade-off with the intention of preserving the space as well
as possible with only assigning one port, and still allow for more than
one if it really is needed.
Is it the above text that triggered your comment or some other text?
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf