Hi Med, Thanks for considering my comment. Your point that the registration of 700/udp was not intentional is an important nuance that I previously did not know.
I now see that RFC 5730, section 2.1. Transport Mapping Considerations lists a bunch of requirements and ends with the following: A transport mapping MUST explain how all of these requirements are met, given the transport protocol being used to exchange data. RFC 5734 does this for TCP. draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic now does this for QUIC. There is no document that does this for UDP. Consequently, I am fine with your proposal. Thanks again, Charles On Jul 2, 2026, at 11:20 PM, [email protected] wrote: Hi Charles, Thank you for raising this point. FWIW, there were also offline discussions with the service port designated experts as they were concerned that the port can't be safely reused if the spec does not clarify how to demux with DTLS. My take on this is to make it clear (including the description as you suggested) that this port number is used ** exclusively ** by EoQ. As a reminder, 700/udp was reserved at the time while there was not actual need/explicit request. The practice was that companion port numbers are reserved systematically, but that is now changed with RFC6335. Cheers, Med -----Message d'origine----- De : Charles Eckel via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Envoyé : vendredi 3 juillet 2026 00:52 À : The IESG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Objet : [iesg] Charles Eckel's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext- epp-quic-10: (with COMMENT) Charles Eckel has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMMENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Seeing all the helpful points already raised by others in their reviews, the only additional comment I have is with respect to the reuse of port 700. I see the WG discussed and reached consensus to reassign the reference for UDP port 700 to the EPP-over-QUIC specification rather than assign a new port number, citing the absence of any known legacy UDP implementations. In order to safely accommodate any implementation that may exist now or in the future, it might be helpful to add a reference to RFC 9443 and mention that this mechanism can be used to demultiplex EPP over UDP from EPP over QUIC. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
