Late as ever :-(, as well as the discussion on the syslog list I alluded to there was also a lengthy discussion about this towards the end of March 2006 on the main IETF list. Netconf also debated it around that time.
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom.petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [Syslog] Use of system port vs. regular port > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:08 PM > Subject: [Syslog] Use of system port vs. regular port > > > > Lars Eggert has entered a DISCUSS on draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls > > asking > > > > "What is the justification for allocating a system port? Why wouldn't a > > registered port suffice? > > (Note that IANA is changing procedures such that system ports are > > becoming more difficult to obtain, because we're running out of them.)" > > > > Is there a reason why we require a system port? Was this discussed > > previously? Would a registered port be acceptable? > > > See > > [Syslog] Other syslog-tls Issues---Issue0 > 20 March 2006 > > This was then incorporated in > > draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt > > Tom Petch > > > Thanks, > > > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > > Syslog mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
