On Mon, 5 Jul 2021, RFC Errata System wrote:
Original Text
-------------
One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
original port was ephemeral (>=1024) or nonephemeral (>1024).
Corrected Text
--------------
One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
original port was ephemeral (>=1024) or nonephemeral (<1024).
Notes
-----
Nonephemeral port numbers are <1024
--- Verifier note ---
The errata is indeed a real typo. As it is in appendix, "held for document
update" was selected.
I agree with the typo fix, but I think it is also wrong to call all
ports > 1024 ephemeral. This is not the case. According to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges: System
Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described in
[RFC6335]
Operating systems have used a different definition though, as can be
seen at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeral_port#Range
Perhaps instead of ephemeral/non-ephemeral, a fix would be:
One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
original port was a system port (<=1024) or non-system port (>1024).
Paul
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
