Re: NEW DRAFT: Regularizing Port Numbers for SSL.

> I believe it is incorrect to claim that rough consensus has been
> achieved on the mailing lists.  If this goes forward, I believe it would
> be more accurate to state that no consensus was achieved, but that the
> request is being made anyway in the interest of expediency.

On the other hand ... given the lack of comparably complete alternative
proposals, I believe it's more accurate to say that there's been a LOT of
inconclusive grousing.  (Much more than I like to find in my mailbox.)

We _know_ that using assigned ports works.  Alternatively, we've seen the
FTP proposal, and one's upcoming for Telnet.  That's the extent of the new
proposals.  The alternatives to assigning ports are incomplete, and don't
address the needs of folk trying to roll out secured applications "soon".

Seriously:  those of you who don't like the idea of assigning ports should
really be making complete proposals (deployable "soon") rather than just
asking other folk to design to suit your taste.

- Dave

"The best is the enemy of the good." - anon

Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 12:17:23 UTC