On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:02 AM, Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote:
> This may be the current practice, but is it something that we want to keep > or encourage? "Just starting TLS" is clearly simpler and more robust than > first going through a "STARTTLS" negotiation. I think it would make perfect > sense to allocate TLS only ports for services that we want to transition to > a "default TLS" posture. RFC 6335 explains why IANA should preserve the > port-numbers resource, and we could do that by phasing out usage of the > clear-text only port, and then removing its registration. That last bit is a misreading of RFC 6335. The document clearly says that there is no expected shortage of port numbers at the current run rate, and nowhere says that preservation should be considered above operational realities. If every single IETF application that has its own (non-TLS) port was given a second port, the effect on the pool of port numbers would be almost unnoticeable. Please don't prematurely optimize in a way that hurts operations. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
