> > From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > (2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does > > _not_ assign > > values - it just registers uses claimed by others. Eliminating > > well-known ports eliminates any assignment role, and > > leaves us with > > just a registry of what people have claimed. Note that this means > > there is no mechanism which prevents the same number from being > > registered by more than one registry. > > So how is a server to support two services that happen to have chosen the sam > e port number? > > I think that what is indicated here is that service discovery by port number > is broken and no longer scalable. > > There are only 65536 possible port numbers, we expect to see rather more Web > Services become established. We have 10,000 registrations already. This is a > failed discovery strategy. > > The scalable discovery strategy for the Internet is to use SRV records. For t > his to be possible it has to become as easy to register an SRV code point as > it is currently to register a port. It makes no sense for there to be more re > strictions on issue of the unlimited resource than on the limited one. > > Getting an SRV code point registered is not a trivial task and there is in fa > ct a parallel non-IANA registry already operating because most people cannot > be bothered to deal with the IETF process. It should not be necessary to writ > e an RFC or go through the IESG to register a code point. The implicit assump > tion here is that the IESG controls the Internet through control of discovery > aparatus, a silly notion that the other Internet standards bodies are not go > ing to accept.
There was never any intention of making getting SRV labels hard. The reason for the RFC was to handle *existing* protocols and to handle protocols which wished to use the fields in a non standard manner. Retrofiting SRV usage into a existing protocol is not straight forward. http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-andrews-http-srv-01.txt is a attempt to retrofit SRV into HTTP. Designing a new protocol to use SRV should be straight forward. I would expect it to be about 1 paragraph in the new protocol's description. > If the W3C or OASIS develops a spec for a Web service it makes no sense for t > hem to then be required to write an RFC and the group be required to grovel t > o the IESG and worse be held captive by the IESG work schedule. Not going to > happen, nor does it. People who want SRVs cut in those groups just do it. > > > > I do _not_ support the introduction of a charging model, for > > a couple of > > reasons. First, I don't want to see port numbers become a > > politicized > > commodity, like IP address space and domain names have. > > I think this is a very bad idea at this stage. At this point introducing char > ging is more likely to lead to speculation and premature exhaustion of the su > pply. > > > > (*) Some years ago, there was a period of time lasting > > several months when > > users of a particular large network provider were unable to > > communicate > > with CMU, because that provider had usurped 128.2/16 for some > > private use > > within its network. > > This particular weakness with the allocation of IPv4 addresses is likely to b > e exercised with increasing frequency when the IPv4 address store begins to r > each exhaustion. > > One can well imagine that a large ISP operating in Asia might decide that rat > her than pay an exhorbitant amount to buy another 4 million addresses it migh > t just make a private agreement to divy up net 18 (18... = MIT) and make a pr > ivate agreement with its neighboring ISPs to do so. > > The bad effects resulting from such practices hardly need to be stated. If we > are lucky people will go for the Class D and Class E space first. But that i > s going to upset some people (Mbone users for instance). > > > The governance mechanisms of the Internet assume a degree of authoritarian co > ntrol that simply does not exist. It is goodwill rather than authority that k > eeps the Internet together. > > My theory (which I make no appologies for acting on) is that Vint Cerf and Jo > n Postel intended the mechanisms set up to control and allocate to act as the > Gordian knot. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf