- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 10:28:09 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
I appreciate the enthusiasm for the tangential here :) but to return the original topic -- I realised that this is obliquely discussed in the applicability draft: https://quicwg.org/ops-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-applicability.html#name-port-selection-and-applicat So at a minimum, it seems like we should expand upon that text to make this issue more clear. I'll try to start a PR. If I read the thread correctly, people seem to think (somewhat pessimistically, but realistically) that protocols susceptible to reflection will continue to be created, so hardcoding a list into the RFC isn't workable. Instead, I'm currently thinking the best approach will be to: 1. Expand the applicability document as per above, using examples from the list I gave, since they're already pervasive 2. Start a discussion in the TSVWG about the possibility of adding a new column to the port registry to capture this information Make sense? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 17 July 2021 00:28:30 UTC