W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-tls@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: NEW DRAFT: Regularizing Port Numbers for SSL.

From: Dennis Glatting <dennis.glatting@plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 16:21:04 -0800
Message-Id: <199702110021.QAA13283@imo.plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us>
To: David.Brownell@Eng.Sun.COM (David Brownell - JavaSoft)
cc: ietf-tls@w3.org

> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:18:09 -0800
> From: David.Brownell@Eng.Sun.COM (David Brownell - JavaSoft)
> > 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.

Asking questions, raising issues, expressing decent, and
pursing discussion does not *require* a formal response and
counter proposal. Those of us who have attended the many IPsec
Photorus, SKIP, and ISAKMP/Oakley debates can attest that
formality is not always the path of expediency.

Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 19:21:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:12 UTC