Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

This was eight years ago. The IESG that the complaint was made against was: Seems like there ought to be a statute of limitations. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

This therefore leads to two questions for the community: 1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the IANA do away with the distinction? 2. If they are not archaic, under what circumstances should they be allocated? My opinion: they are archaic and should

Re: RFC Publication - Patent-Free Declarations ... -- Market of Protocols -- Free Protocols Foundation

Mohsen BANAN wrote: As an alternative to allowing IETF to decide and control the future of the RFC Publication Service, we propose a model of independent services (RFC Publication, IANA, patent-free declarations, ...) creating an environment for a market of protocols with inherent checks and ba

Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

Mohsen BANAN wrote: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO) Mohsen Banan mohsen at neda.com November 5, 1998 I suppose I should make a note to t

Transparency (Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter)

Carl Malamud wrote: Hi Brian - I agree with the first part ("seek multiple proposals when possible and appropriate"). However, we may disagree on the last part ("transparent as possible"). My formulation would be "transparent" without the qualifier. Transparent with a qualifier == opaque. Th

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

The whole idea of fixed ports is broken. The idea that there are only 1024 or even 65535 Internet applications is broken. agree with you so far. The Internet has a signalling layer, the DNS. Applications should use it. strongly disagree. DNS is a huge mess. It is slow and unreliable. In

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:41:25 -0800, "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If there is a reserved range, then it is easy to start dynamic allocation outside the range. Yes -- this is my point. I don't care about Unix-style privileged ports (and have never l

RE: Guidance needed on well known ports

While in general I would like to see this approach taken, this particular case is a perfect example of where I think one can not reasonably do that. The protocol is for the purpose of configuring a router. The router that needs to be configured could easily be between the network engineer and

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:38 -0800, Eliot Lear wrote: > This therefore leads to two questions for the community: > >1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the IANA > do away with the distinction? >2. If they are not archaic, under what circumstances should they b

RE: Guidance needed on well known ports

The whole idea of fixed ports is broken. The idea that there are only 1024 or even 65535 Internet applications is broken. The Internet has a signalling layer, the DNS. Applications should use it. The SRV record provides an infinitely extensible mechanism for advertising ports. Fixed ports do no

RE: Guidance needed on well known ports

> All that aside, the IANA has a distinction (based on history) > between ports below 1024 and those above. And whne asking > for a port number assignment, one specifies which range one > wants. I had least can not find a coherent strategy for what > should be on one side or the other of tha

RE: Guidance needed on well known ports

I would not that starting dynamic ports above 1024 or even above 4096 is not sufficient. There are already services with assigned ports higher than that. And it keeps growing. The IANA list of well-known ports is quite long. If we could go back and start over, something like dynamic DNS and

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:41:25 -0800, "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there is a reserved range, then it > is easy to start dynamic allocation outside the range. Yes -- this is my point. I don't care about Unix-style privileged ports (and have never liked them anyway), but putti

Re: Suggestion on a BCP specific WG...

todd glassey wrote: > Response- > > No Joel - you are dead wrong IMHO. The IETF doesnt get to redefine the > Industry Term BCP to mean 'some document we publish'. We use the term "Request for Comments" when after last call for input. We use the term "Standard" when we have no official complian

RE: Guidance needed on well known ports

> A more interesting question is this: what are the odds that a user > process will accidentally grab the port number before the system > process gets to it? The notion of a "privileged" port number is > certainly preposterous; that said, putting services in a range that > ordinary applications te

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:44:13 -0800, "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the > IANA > > do away with the distinction? > > I don't know whether I would use the word "archaic", but the distinction > between < 1024 a

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

Hi - > From: "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion" > Cc: "IANA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lisa Dusseault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "netconf" > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:44 AM > Subject: RE: Guidance needed on well known ports ... > >

RE: Guidance needed on well known ports

>1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the IANA > do away with the distinction? I don't know whether I would use the word "archaic", but the distinction between < 1024 and >= 1024 is certainly Unix-specific. In the Windows operating systems, the port range 1-1023 i

Guidance needed on well known ports

Hello all, In trudging along with the NETCONF specs we hit a bump when the IANA asked what type of ports we would like, whether they should be well known ports or not. The working group has churned for a while on this and while almost everyone agrees it's a minor thing, it seems we need some guid

Re: RFC Publication - Patent-Free Declarations ... -- Market of Protocols -- Free Protocols Foundation

Mohsen BANAN wrote: we propose... Besides yourself, who is the "we"? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline

Hi Leslie, and thanks for working on this. I also believe that this process is important and beneficial for everyone who either uses or produces (IETF, IAB, IRTF, individuals) RFCs. Overall, the timeline looks fine. I have a few comments and questions on it, however: > . developing analogou

Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter

> I think that was your point Scott? I just wanted to be sure the list of RFC types was complete Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: RFC Publication - Patent-Free Declarations ... -- Market of Protocols -- Free Protocols Foundation

Hi, Mohan, As much as I applaud the idea of "patent-free protocols", isn't the issue that we can't really know that a protocol is "patent-free"? We can only observe that "we haven't been notified of any applicable patent claims - yet". For some value of the word "applicable"... And maybe we

Re: RFC Publication - Patent-Free Declarations ... -- Market of Protocols -- Free Protocols Foundation

Mohsen BANAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The Free Protocols Foundation >Policies and Procedures This looks like a useful initiative, although I cannot find any discussion of what copying conditions you'll use on documents. Can you clarify this? I believe it is impo

RFC Publication - Patent-Free Declarations ... -- Market of Protocols -- Free Protocols Foundation

As an alternative to allowing IETF to decide and control the future of the RFC Publication Service, we propose a model of independent services (RFC Publication, IANA, patent-free declarations, ...) creating an environment for a market of protocols with inherent checks and balances. What is to fo

Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

[ This is a repost from 6 Nov 1998. In particular the section on: o Separate The RFC Publication Service from the IETF/IESG/IAB. is relevant to the current: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter thread. ] Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Edi

Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500, RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Ran> It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades Ran> has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited Ran> to just "the IETF community". For openers, the IRTF and IAB Ran>