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

> > Mark:
> > You can never undo this, Win.  Never ever.  Once IANA approves that
> > request those ports are gone in the short and long term,  because somebody
> > somewhere will still be running a secure server on one of them.
> >
> > [and]
> >
> > I hope
> > the IANA returns this request to sender with a clear message that no such
> > requests will be considered until they are the last resort,  not the
> > first.
> Eric:
> The alternatives are taking 6 months or a year (more likely a year) of dicking
> around trying to A) get people to write drafts on TLS-MUX, and running
> code ("concensus and running code" remember), then adopting that.
> B) getting people to write drafts for negotiating TLS in the various
> application protocols, then working with the IETF groups that oversee
> those protocols to incorporate TLS into them. 
> or C) we could forget about specifying ports at all.  However the likely
> result of that would be a whole lot of people in the field putting an
> TLS library together with their favorite TCP apps and just running it
> on whatever port they have free at the moment.

or D) document the port assignments using some mechanism other than
the IANA.

I don't have any problem with people solving problems today by agreeing
on separate port assignments.  But I firmly believe that these ad-hoc
quick fixes should be "etched in sand" via an Internet Draft or a BCP,
and not "etched in stone" via the IANA.

I agree completely with Mark - the IANA should use it's good? (DOOM indeed!)
judgement and reject this request.  If approved, it can never be undone.

Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 09:20:52 UTC