+1 to everything Magnus says here. THis is exactly how I view the multiple port
issue.
I will also add that at least part of this fuss seems to be concern about how
"human oversight is needed but what if the overseer misbehaves" issue. Speaking
as someone who has been doing IANA reviews for well over a decade, it is
absolutely the case that a reviwer's actions can screw up a registry. But the
solution to this problem is not to overconstrain the review process - we've
tried that approach and found it causes more problems than it solves - but
rather to have proper checks and balances in the process itself. I believe the
current specified process - once you understand the details, which
unfortunately are a bit difficult to track through all the various
specifications - is sufficient to deal with this.
Ned
Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 18:44:
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying here but you are avoiding the
issue I am concerned with. Is allocating a second port for the secure
version of a document a frivolous use case or not? I read this draft as
saying it is. Others read the draft as saying it is not and that type of
allocation is fine. This seems fairly easy to deal with - first lets agree
if particular 2nd port for secure version is a reason to reject requests or
not then see if any text needs to be adjusted in the draft to reflect that.
Well, frankly I don't know. I think it is something that can be avoided
going forward in many use cases, but not all. Simply by thinking of this
issue in the design phase. In addition there is clearly other solutions
there other considerations, like NAT traversal has said, yes
multiplexing is a must, thus live with even higher complexity costs.
The issue I have a problem with is that is we say on general basis that
due to negotiation of security protocols we are allowed to use different
ports for negotiation or simply usage of it. Then why is that different
from different versions of the protocol, or feature support. What is the
difference for a security protocol compared to these other issues?
What I am worried here is that we will see an increased port consumption
rather than a decreased one. At the current run rate I think the
estimate is 50 years+ before run out. That is something that I am
reasonably comfortable, but if the consumption rate increases four
times, then I am suddenly not comfortable. So I am pretty certain that
we need to aim at lowering the consumption rather than raising it.
As I see it there are only one way of doing it.
- State clearly that you really need to do everything reasonable so that
your application is only for one port.
- Be reasonably tough from the expert reviewer to ensure that applicants
has done this.
And from that perspective I don't think security is special in anyway.
It is only one of several things that could potentially require
additional registered ports. Yes security is important, but as
previously discussed it doesn't appear that the actual level of security
provided is different if you are forced to use one port or two. It might
affect the ease of implementation and deployment of security, which is
another aspect of impact.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:
magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf