> > From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > (2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does
> > _not_ assign
> > values - it just registers uses claimed by others. Eliminating
> > well-known ports eliminates any assignment role, and
> > leaves us with
> > just a registry of what people have claimed. Note that this means
> > there is no mechanism which prevents the same number from being
> > registered by more than one registry.
>
> So how is a server to support two services that happen to have chosen the sam
> e port number?
>
> I think that what is indicated here is that service discovery by port number
> is broken and no longer scalable.
>
> There are only 65536 possible port numbers, we expect to see rather more Web
> Services become established. We have 10,000 registrations already. This is a
> failed discovery strategy.
>
> The scalable discovery strategy for the Internet is to use SRV records. For t
> his to be possible it has to become as easy to register an SRV code point as
> it is currently to register a port. It makes no sense for there to be more re
> strictions on issue of the unlimited resource than on the limited one.
>
> Getting an SRV code point registered is not a trivial task and there is in fa
> ct a parallel non-IANA registry already operating because most people cannot
> be bothered to deal with the IETF process. It should not be necessary to writ
> e an RFC or go through the IESG to register a code point. The implicit assump
> tion here is that the IESG controls the Internet through control of discovery
> aparatus, a silly notion that the other Internet standards bodies are not go
> ing to accept.
There was never any intention of making getting SRV labels hard.
The reason for the RFC was to handle *existing* protocols and to
handle protocols which wished to use the fields in a non standard
manner.
Retrofiting SRV usage into a existing protocol is not straight
forward.
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-andrews-http-srv-01.txt
is a attempt to retrofit SRV into HTTP.
Designing a new protocol to use SRV should be straight forward.
I would expect it to be about 1 paragraph in the new protocol's
description.
> If the W3C or OASIS develops a spec for a Web service it makes no sense for t
> hem to then be required to write an RFC and the group be required to grovel t
> o the IESG and worse be held captive by the IESG work schedule. Not going to
> happen, nor does it. People who want SRVs cut in those groups just do it.
>
>
> > I do _not_ support the introduction of a charging model, for
> > a couple of
> > reasons. First, I don't want to see port numbers become a
> > politicized
> > commodity, like IP address space and domain names have.
>
> I think this is a very bad idea at this stage. At this point introducing char
> ging is more likely to lead to speculation and premature exhaustion of the su
> pply.
>
>
> > (*) Some years ago, there was a period of time lasting
> > several months when
> > users of a particular large network provider were unable to
> > communicate
> > with CMU, because that provider had usurped 128.2/16 for some
> > private use
> > within its network.
>
> This particular weakness with the allocation of IPv4 addresses is likely to b
> e exercised with increasing frequency when the IPv4 address store begins to r
> each exhaustion.
>
> One can well imagine that a large ISP operating in Asia might decide that rat
> her than pay an exhorbitant amount to buy another 4 million addresses it migh
> t just make a private agreement to divy up net 18 (18... = MIT) and make a pr
> ivate agreement with its neighboring ISPs to do so.
>
> The bad effects resulting from such practices hardly need to be stated. If we
> are lucky people will go for the Class D and Class E space first. But that i
> s going to upset some people (Mbone users for instance).
>
>
> The governance mechanisms of the Internet assume a degree of authoritarian co
> ntrol that simply does not exist. It is goodwill rather than authority that k
> eeps the Internet together.
>
> My theory (which I make no appologies for acting on) is that Vint Cerf and Jo
> n Postel intended the mechanisms set up to control and allocate to act as the
> Gordian knot.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
