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

David P. Kemp wrote:
> 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.

First of all, I'd like to be clear that (I hope!) we're talking about
the new ports Chris is proposing allocating, not the old ports that
are already allocated for SSL/TLS.

Now, what makes you think that if someone like Microsoft or Netscape
ships a product that uses particular port assignments that it is any
less "set in stone" than if the IANA registers it?  Once a product like
that is deployed (especially if it has multi-vendor support), it's
very hard to make people change what port they're using.

Personally, I'd much rather have the IANA coordinate these port numbers
than have individual software companies going off on their own.

You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      |

Received on Tuesday, 11 February 1997 12:06:36 UTC