names, port numbers

I doubt that many browser vendors, and specifically Netscape or Microsoft,
use the NAME for the port number.  It seems to me that I've found may
machines with empty /etc/services files (to use the Unix term) that run
Netscape and IE with no problem.

I do however agree it would be good to know what port NUMBERS they support.

And there's an answer to the "solve it by using one port" argument.  It's
to tell them we're going to work on that in/after Memphis.

Also, if the number of ports seems a problem we can propose to write a
B-C-P (Best Current Practice) document -- that's what we're all saying this
is, current practice.

Can we put some NAMES and/or URLs against these names?  Who exactly is
running Socks over SSL, for example?  I think it would be productive, since
we've got this conversation going, to enumerate KNOWN CURRENT
implementations vs. SUGGESTED implemenations.  For example, I would like to
build an SSL-enabled LPR, and would like a port, but I can't show you
running code so it's not currently implemented.  I volunteer to gather a
list, if anyone has suggestions.


>At 6:13 PM -0800 2/4/97, Tim Hudson wrote:
>>According to Christopher Allen:
>>> 	https       443/tcp    http protocol over TLS/SSL
>
>What do other people think we should do -- should we go ahead and
>regularize the names? Netscape & Microsoft -- we particularly need to know
>about your priorities in the above list.


               Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>       +1 617 332 7292
               Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA
               Fax: +1 617 332 7970           http://www.shore.net/~sable
                           "Developers of communications software"

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 1997 07:20:55 UTC