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

At 6:13 PM -0800 2/4/97, Tim Hudson wrote:
>According to Christopher Allen:
>> 	https       443/tcp    http protocol over TLS/SSL
>> 	ssmtp       465/tcp    smtp protocol over TLS/SSL
>> 	snntp       563/tcp    nntp protocol over TLS/SSL
>> 	sldap       636/tcp    ldap protocol over TLS/SSL
>> 	spop3       995/tcp    pop3 protocol over TLS/SSL
>> 	ftps	    990/tcp    ftp protocol over TLS/SSL
>> 	simap       991/tcp    imap4 protocol over TLS/SSL
>
>    Why not have them all named <PROTOCOL>s with the non-regular name as
>an alias ... also your list should have # comment otherwise it isn't in
>the right format for inclusion in the standard services "database" :-)

Agreed.

>The current naming scheme is inconsistant and really should be sorted out.
>
> 	https       443/tcp            # http protocol over TLS/SSL
> 	smtps       465/tcp    ssmtp   # smtp protocol over TLS/SSL
> 	nntps       563/tcp    snntp   # nntp protocol over TLS/SSL
> 	ldaps       636/tcp    sldap   # ldap protocol over TLS/SSL
> 	pop3s       995/tcp    spop3   # pop3 protocol over TLS/SSL
> 	ftps	    990/tcp            # ftp protocol over TLS/SSL
> 	imaps       991/tcp    simap   # imap4 protocol over TLS/SSL
>
>    You might also want to have snews as an alias to minimise impact
>and also strongly recommend that people using the old name format change
>their code to use the official name.

The issue of the names is a legitimate problem that I wasn't sure that I
wanted to address in this email -- I've not even been able to track down
how new URL identifiers are even registered.

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.

>    I'd also think that you should ask for ports for the following at
>the same time:
>
>	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
>
>    If you want to forward this to the list for discussion then feel
>free to do so ... however I don't think discussion is required as most
>of these are already in use out there (not on those ports [i.e. non-official])

I was avoiding adding too many new ports without developer commitment to
support them. If we give the IANA a huge number of port requests they are
going to punt and say "solve the problem by using one port" which is not a
completely unreasonable request, but we are looking for a short term
solution.

If you are a developer that is committed to supplying SSL secured versions
of any of these protocols, send me a private email. I will keep this
information confidential unless you give me permission to give out your
name. If I get confirmations, I'll add the requests to the list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
..Christopher Allen                  Consensus Development Corporation..
..<ChristopherA@consensus.com>                 1563 Solano Avenue #355..
..                                             Berkeley, CA 94707-2116..
..Home of "SSL Plus:                      o510/559-1500  f510/559-1505..
..  SSL 3.0 Integration Suite(tm)" <http://www.consensus.com/SSLPlus/>..

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 1997 21:40:40 UTC