Hi, Daniel, On 4/28/2017 12:14 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > In particular, the approach i've described in the draft only works for > client-speaks-first, stream-based protocols. I don't think you can assert that it works except where you have checked, and only for the *current* definition of those protocols.
Keep in mind that ports are assigned to current *and all future* versions of a protocol, so all bets are off the instant you stop looking. Which means, effectively, that you can never assert that this works on an existing port assignment UNTIL you coordinate with that port's assignee, and they confirm that their service will never conflict with your definition. That also implies that this service cannot be defined as valid for any service that isn't already assigned. That would effectively be squatting on the entire port space. Joe _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
