Hi all, the exact same issue (dedicated port or not and if so in which port range) has been discussed on the netconf mailing list. I encourage everyone to have a look at their archive. For details on netconf (including mailing list archive link), please see:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/netconf/ Below is a forward from the - IMHO - most important message on that list. This could be our guideline for discussion. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:44 AM > > > > Netconf is at best a 'niche' protocol at present, because: > > > > (a) Netconf currently has no standard data models > > > > (b) Netconf currently is intended for use only with routers and > > other intermediate network elements > > > > (c) Netconf operations have fuzzy semantics, due to the lack of any > > standard data models (e.g., "merge this blob with that blob") > > > > Therefore, Netconf in not plausibly a critical system service. > > > > An IANA-assigned "Registered Port" (greater than 1024) is > appropriate. > > > > The argument that user processes may pre-bind the Netconf > port applies > > equally to an IANA-assigned "Well Known Port" (less than 1024). > > > > I encourage the IETF ADs to intervene here and provide direction. > > > > The direction is that: > > - The IESG is OK if the WG wants system ports if they have some > reasonable argument to request so. The stronger the argument, > the better. But a reasonable argument is OK. > - I think the arguments I have seen pro and against sofar make me > tend to agree with selecting <1024. They seem at least reasonable. > (I am in the air right now, so I can only comment as to > what I have seen > up till now). > - I have seen arguments for using ports above 1024 too. > they are OK but I do not find them as convincing (yet) as the ones > in favor fo <1024. > - I have not seen arguments that point out a fatal problem if we > assign below 1024. > - I find it important that people who have implented (or are > implementing) > or those who plan to deploy now or within a year are > speaking up. Their > view counts heavily as far as I am concerned. > > Hope this helps, > Bert (speaking as AD) > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
