In message <[email protected]>, Joe Touch writes: > 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.
Actually it is proposing a extension to the existing port usage that co-exists. Whether it was said well or not is a different matter. Writing a draft is how we propose extensions. Squatting would be just doing it then begging forgiveness afterwards. > > 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 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
