Hi, thanks for the summary.
On 2010-1-20, at 11:28, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Lars Eggert writes:
>> I'm not on the yam list and this is the first message in this thread
>> that I was CC'ed on. It seems like you are suggesting changes to
>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports, but due to the lack of context I'm at a
>> loss as to what they are...
>
> Tthe thead in a nutshell: The iana-ports document says "one port for
> each purpose" etc.
yes - as a guideline for *new* assignments. No existing assignment is modified
by this document. (Maybe we need to explicitly say this if we aren't already.)
> IMAP, POP3 and perhaps SMTP, however, exist in two.
> 993 ("imaps") and 143 ("imap") for IMAP. Everyone on the list dislikes
> port 993. The question is whether port 993 should survive in the IANA
> registry.
It should and it will.
> My suggestion for the iana-ports document is to permit more than one
> port in those cases where that's currently deployed, and apply the
> one-port-per-purpose rule only to new allocations.
Exactly. The intent is not to revisit past assignments and check whether they
comply with the new rules.
> My rationale for that is that the extra ports/service names aren't
> really free. You can't use port 993 or service name imaps for anything
> else, and IMO that's reason enough to keep it in the registry.
Exactly.
Lars
> The same argument applies to pop3s/995, and perhaps to smtps/465 (smtps
> is falling out of use).
>
> Arnt
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
