- From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 11:47:16 -0800
- 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 UTC