Hugo,
On 4/28/2017 12:57 PM, Hugo Connery wrote: > ... >> But using any existing ports for new behaviors is simply not your >> right. >> ... > I could not more vehemently disagree. > > 1) DKG is publishing an idea to the community, not taking over > anything. That idea encourages others to squat on an existing port. I doubt either the IESG or IANA would allow that to proceed as an RFC of any kind. > 2) I will run whatever software on my end-point using any port > that I wish. End of story. I agree fully with that story - any service can be run on any port. However, the integrity of the very nature of assigned ports requires is based on the expectation that endpoints run only the assigned service on the corresponding assigned port *except when other direct information indicates otherwise* (e.g., port override in a URL, mDNS entry, etc.) > Standards exist to encourage compliance, > not demand it. That undermines the very nature of a standard. If you want others to follow your laws, you have to respect theirs. Joe _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
