Alfred � wrote:
Please note that the Transport Area is in the process to update
the Port Numbers IANA registry -- see:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04>
In pursuit of long-standing IESG recommendations, the new unified
Service Names and Port Numbers registry will no longer allow
multiple port numbers to be registered for a single conceptual
service (and different service names for variants of a service),
and it intends to start applying the new policy on legacy registry
content during the planned (annual?) "garbage collection" phases
that IANA will conduct in the future.
So unless a specific use case can be shown to be supported by a very
strong momentum, the registry garbage collection phases will perhaps
some day start challenging the service name registrations and default
port assignments for 'imaps' and similar "services over TLS" that do
not use in-band security negotiation on the same port number as the
basic service and hence do not conform to the new registry rules for
service names and default port number assignment.
Alfred,
While I agree that imaps/pops wouldn't have been registered according to
new rules, they represent widely deployed variants of IMAP/POP3, so I
don't think IANA can just remove them from the registry.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
