- From: Christian Kuhtz <chk@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 97 13:38:40 -0700
- To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@consensus.com>
- Cc: Tim Hudson <tjh@mincom.com>, ietf-tls@w3.org, ssl-talk@netscape.com
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:39:36 -0800, Christopher Allen
<ChristopherA@consensus.com> wrote:
> 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.
Even if we have developer committment, heck, ports below 1024 are sacred and
a scarce resource. We need to find a way to solve the problem by using one
port NOW. Has anyone done any work on reducing this tremendous waste of
ports?
Why can't both service live on one port? That's what we should be working on
rather than a quick and ugly fix by simply registering all those port ranges.
This current schema of allocating SSL alter-egos for existing services does
not scale.
Best regards,
Chris
--
Christian Kuhtz <chk@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
".com is a mistake."
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 1997 15:42:30 UTC