Joe,
SRV records are not equivalent to either assigned or mutually-negotiated
ports; they would require extra messages, extra round-trip times, and/or
extra services (DNS) beyond what is currently required.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that no assignments be done, but
that SRV
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
Eliot Lear wrote:
Joe,
SRV records are not equivalent to either assigned or mutually-negotiated
ports; they would require extra messages, extra round-trip times, and/or
extra services (DNS) beyond what is currently required.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that no assignments be
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The second is a problem, for reasons
explained in my I-D, because it puts control over host
service offerings in the hands of whomever controls its DNS
(e.g., another thing for ISPs to claim makes you a commercial
customer at commercial prices)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The second is a problem, for reasons
explained in my I-D, because it puts control over host
service offerings in the hands of whomever controls its DNS
(e.g., another thing for ISPs to claim makes you a commercial
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The second is a problem, for reasons explained in my I-D,
because it
puts control over host service offerings in the hands of whomever
controls its DNS (e.g.,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
You are confusing politics with technology and making a hash of both.
I would encourage you to review the doc; it discusses the details of the
differences in technical terms. I'll refrain from repeating them here.
Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
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
Eliot Lear wrote:
Jeff,
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before reading this
thread. However, I have now read it, so feel prepared to comment.
As it only just came out, you haven't missed much of a debate.
(1) The IANA is a group of adults, but it is no longer a group of
Jeff,
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before reading this
thread. However, I have now read it, so feel prepared to comment.
As it only just came out, you haven't missed much of a debate.
(1) The IANA is a group of adults, but it is no longer a group of
protocol subject
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before reading this
thread. However, I have now read it, so feel prepared to comment.
On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 03:11:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, the distinction between well known ports and just assigned ports is
--On Wednesday, 24 May, 2006 19:06 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before
reading this thread. However, I have now read it, so feel
prepared to comment.
...
(2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does
Hi,
On May 24, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 03:11:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the distinction between well known ports and just assigned
ports is
outdated. The overarching theme of the document is that the IANA
should
be
Hi,
On May 24, 2006, at 6:16 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This is not correct. They do, indeed, assign values.
Yes.
They also apply some minimal rules in doing so.
IANA does a basic sanity check and if there is any question as to
whether a port should be allocated, we pass the request to
14 matches
Mail list logo
