Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

On 2016-01-20, at 23:41, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
> - those which are not services, but are duplicates of HTTP
>
>       these are the "I really wanted port 80, but it's already
>       taken, but I need to run my own web server so users can
>       open a browser window to see how to monitor or configure
>       my device"
>
>       these have been turned down, but not at any astounding rate.
>       They are declined as duplicates of HTTP, the same way that
>       requesting your own DNS port or NFS port would be.
>
> What we really need is a way for many interfaces to be able to
> "register" with their local web server, to reserve URL prefixes, etc.
Right. Or the ability to run multiple web servers on different ports in a way 
that results in a priori known URLs, such as result from assigning unique ports 
and then including them in the URLs. (That is why I earlier in the thread 
proposed to start allowing service names in addition to ports in URLs.)

Lars

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail