On April 7, 2022 12:13:21 PM GMT+03:00, Roger Price <ro...@rogerprice.org> wrote: >I have received the following disappointing reply from IANA. It was precisely >the IETF review/IESG approval that I was asking for. > >Meantime it seems to me to be an anomaly that the Network UPS Tools project is >not able to use port ups intended for UPS management.
It is a bit stupid but nut uses a different port for so long that, to be honest, I do not think that it matters any more. > > > >This request is declined. > >Per RFC6335, in order to deassign a port, we need extensive information on its >current deployment. Even if that were to happen for port 401, it would not >be reassignable as requested because: >RFC6335 requires that system ports be assigned only by IETF review or IESG >approval (Sec 8.1.2) >RFC7605 advises against any further assignment of system ports (Sec 7.3) > >Finally, the current assignment that uses TLS should be more than sufficient >to >support STARTTLS on the same port, so no new assignment for a separate >secure port should be needed, regardless of in what range it is requested. > She was not wrong, if we factor in scarcity of port resources and the way STARTTLS works wolfy _______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser