I'd like to get some peer review on my response to IANA here. CouchDB is a special use-case of HTTP 1.1 as justified in my previous application for TCP 5984. It is, however, still bound by the common limitations of HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS. In theory, HTTP 1.1 provides a mechanism to upgrade an established connection to a secure one, but in practice this is very rarely used, or in fact, implemented.
If you wish to use HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS in a way that is compatible with current clients and libraries, it is necessary to use a dedicated port for this. Because it is anticipated that users will want to host non-secure and secure CouchDB databases on the same sever, we are therefor requesting a secure port, similar to TCP 443. On 24 Dec 2010, at 16:51, Pearl Liang via RT wrote: > Dear Noah Slater: > > Thank you for your patience. We received the following question for you: > > ----- > > Please justify and explain why a separate port number would be needed > for a secure version of the protocol? IANA does not anymore anticipate > allocating separate ports for secure versions as this is no longer > necessary with modern security protocols. Same holds for new > versions of the protocol (a version number should be included). > > ----- > > When we receive your reply, we will continue the processing of > the request. > > Thank you, > > Pearl Liang > ICANN/IANA > > On Tue Dec 14 11:08:43 2010, pearl.liang wrote: >> On Sat Dec 04 00:04:28 2010, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 22:36, Pearl Liang via RT wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Noah Slater: >>>> >>>> Thank you for your submission for a user port number. >>>> >>>> Can you please provide the current spec for the following? >>>> >>>>> Message Formats : >>>>> See TCP 5984. >>>>> >>>>> Message Types : >>>>> See TCP 5984. >>>>> >>>>> Message opcodes : >>>>> See TCP 5984. >>>>> >>>>> Message Sequences : >>>>> See TCP 5984. >>>>> >>>>> Protocol functions : >>>>> See TCP 5984. >>> >>> Sure, CouchDB uses HTTP 1.1 as defined in RFC 2616. >>> >>> The rationale for why CouchDB needs a distinct port from 80 was given >>> in the application for TCP 5984. To summarise: TCP 80 is defined as >>> HTTP for the World Wide Web, and CouchDB is a specialised >>> application of HTTP that is commonly expected to run in parallel >>> with a traditional web server. This same rationale should justify >>> the application for a TSL/SSL port variation. >>> >>>> The information is required to be reviewed by the current expert >>>> review team designated by IESG. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >> >> ***ORIGINAL TEMPLATE*** >> On Fri Dec 03 05:47:41 2010, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Application for User Registered Port Number >>> >>> Name : >>> Noah Slater >>> >>> E-mail : >>> [email protected] >>> >>> Protocol Number : >>> TCP >>> >>> Message Formats : >>> See TCP 5984. >>> >>> Message Types : >>> See TCP 5984. >>> >>> Message opcodes : >>> See TCP 5984. >>> >>> Message Sequences : >>> See TCP 5984. >>> >>> Protocol functions : >>> See TCP 5984. >>> >>> Broadcast or Multicast used ? >>> no >>> >>> How and what for Broadcast or Multicast is used (if used): >>> >>> >>> Description : >>> This port will be for CouchDB HTTP traffic over an SSL connection. >>> CouchDB traffic is currently assigned to TCP 5984 by IANA. Due to >>> Host restrictions inherent to the HTTP protocol, SSL communications >>> need to use a different port number to differentiate them from non- >>> SSL communications from the same network address. Compare TCP 80 >>> and TCP 443. >>> >>> Name of the port : >>> CouchDB over TLS/SSL >>> >>> Short name of the port : >>> couchdbs >>> > >
