That sounds pretty good to me.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >> >> > >
