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

Tom Weinstein wrote:
> Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > 
> >> People keep claiming that ports below 1024 are somehow "sacred".  I
> >> have yet to hear a convincing argument for why this is so.  In the
> >> old days, the OS reserved those ports for protected use and normal
> >> user programs couldn't use them.  With the proliferation of PCs, it
> >> is trivial for someone to get a program to listen on one of those
> >> ports.  So, why are these ports so special?
> > 
> > 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.

Well, aren't some of the ports around 2000 already reserved?

 Wolfgang