On 4/26/2017 3:43 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Paul Wouters writes:
>> ...
>> So it should add an Updates: RFC-3947
> Not really.
... (basically points to other more appropriate RFCs to UPDATE)
I'll leave it to you and the IESG to determine what RFC this document
should be updated to correctly chan
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Joe Touch wrote:
> > Every bit pattern, including those using magic numbers, is already
> > owned and under the control of each assigned port. It is not
> > appropriate for any new service to hijack that pattern as having a
> > different meaning UNLESS ex
Hi, Joe
I haven’t been involved with this draft, but I don’t believe that last
statement is correct:
> On 25 Apr 2017, at 23:03, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>>
>> This issue is really everyone circling around the elephant in the room.
>> Part of this draft is designed to break through firewalls and
>>
Hi, Paul,
On 4/25/2017 12:04 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> Ports issues:
>>
>> Every bit pattern, including those using magic numbers, is already
>> owned and under the control of each assigned port. It is not
>> appropriate for any new service to hijack tha
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Joe Touch wrote:
Ports issues:
Every bit pattern, including those using magic numbers, is already owned and
under the control of each assigned port. It is not appropriate for any new
service to hijack that pattern as having a different meaning UNLESS explicitly
updating
Hi, all,
I'm providing this feedback at the request of the ADs.
The port information is based on my experience as IANA port review team lead.
The transport information is based on my experience in TSV-ART.
Joe
Ports issues:
Every bit pattern, including those using magic numb
