W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-tls@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: TWO WEEK LAST CALL: Regularizing Port Numbers for SSL.

From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 11:47:16 -0800
Message-ID: <32FA3544.3305@netscape.com>
To: Mark Shuttleworth <marks@thawte.com>
CC: Christian Kuhtz <chk@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@consensus.com>, Tim Hudson <tjh@mincom.com>, ietf-tls@w3.org, ssl-talk@netscape.com
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> 
>>> In this case,  surely you could have no objection to:
>>>
>>> nntps          2001/tcp           # NNTP over SSL/TLS
>>> ldaps          2002/tcp           # LDAP over SSL/TLS
>>> ...
>>
>> None whatsoever.
> 
> Super.  Chris,  since in your proposal you explicitly state we're
> looking for "a short time solution",  would you be prepared to move
> those ports above 1024?  I think all us purists and academics would
> sleep easier knowing our children might still have ports to play with.

Whoa!  Hold on there.  I should have said "None whatsoever, in
principle."  Those protocols already have ports reserved.  All Chris
is talking about is changing the names.

These, on the other hand, I would certainly not object to changing their
ports to be over 1024:

ftps        990/tcp            # ftp protocol over TLS/SSL
simap       991/tcp            # imap4 protocol over TLS/SSL
logins      992/tcp            # login protocol over TLS/SSL
shells      993/tcp            # shell protocol over TLS/SSL
telnets     994/tcp            # telnet protocol over TLS/SSL
gophers     995/tcp            # gopher protocol over TLS/SSL
ircs        996/tcp            # irc protocol over TLS/SSL
sockss     1081/tcp            # socks protocol over TLS/SSL

-- 
You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      | tomw@netscape.com
Received on Thursday, 6 February 1997 14:45:54 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:34:56 EDT