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.
And more to the point, removing them from the registry won't have the slightest
effect on the huge number of deployments using them. Or the vast installed base
of clients that support them, sometimes to the exlcusion of other, better
schemes.
All it would accomplish is to damage the credibility and eventually the overall
value of the registry.
Ned
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
