Re: NEW DRAFT: Regularizing Port Numbers for SSL.

At 04:54 PM 2/7/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> 	https       443/tcp	https
>> 	ssmtp       465/tcp	ssmtp
>> 	snews       563/tcp	snews
>> 	ssl-ldap    636/tcp	ssl-ldap
>> 	spop3       995/tcp	SSL based POP3
>> As the above registrations are inconsistant, and most don't even mention
>> SSL or TLS, we would like to get these port assignments and names
>> regularized in the listing as follows:
>That's kind of funny. spop3 and ssl-ldap both mention ssl :-)

Yes but rfc 1700 doesn't say anything about SSL being used in https and
who's this "MCOM" they mention anyway?

  ...edited for brevity.  see original for full text...

>I guess the real question is, does this will this "obsolete" any current
>products that do not do TLS on the above ports?

I think not as the revision number scheme should prevent that problem.

>Is "TLS" available from any vendor, aside from the author of this draft?

I believe the answer to that is NO.  Nobody.

>What is the status of the TLS track?

I believe the status of it is "deliver or be cancelled".  Therefore, we are
striving to deliver.
People have better things to do than follow irrelevant committees.  (At
least some people do...)

> Are we commiting to a moving to
>TLS for the sole reason of supporting a vendor's efforts to single-handedly
>control TLS?

Hell no.  If I wanted single vendor control I'd sit at home and read my
MSDN CD's and log on to and believe everything I
read there.

               Rodney Thayer <>       +1 617 332 7292
               Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA
               Fax: +1 617 332 7970 
                           "Developers of communications software"

Received on Sunday, 9 February 1997 10:52:02 UTC