Hi, I'm not on the yam list and this is the first message in this thread that I was CC'ed on. It seems like you are suggesting changes to draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports, but due to the lack of context I'm at a loss as to what they are...
Lars On 2010-1-20, at 10:54, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > On 01/19/2010 11:47 PM, Ned Freed wrote: >> Sigh. We've attemped this sort of purity policing many times in the past. The >> results can be summarized quite simply: >> >> IT DOES NOT WORK > > IMO it works acceptably for new usage. It fails grandly when it tries to > squeeze toothpaste back into the tube, but that's different. > > Port 993 was a mistake IMO, but it's best to acknowledge our past > mistakes, not sweep them under the carpet. Port 993 still exists, > remains in use, and the name imaps refers to it. I don't like that, but > I also don't think an IANA registry can list either 993 or imaps as > being free for other use. > >>> Please read draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04 and comment on the >>> TSVWG list, if you want. Releated discussion also happend on the >>> apps-discuss at ietf dot org mailing list. > > My suggestion would be to add a section to that draft grandfathering > ports 465, 993, 2000 and a few more (adding as much negative verbiage as > seems wise; I don't think the exact amount makes any difference at all). > IIRC port 2000 can be grandfathered a half-dozen times. > > I didn't see a comment address in the draft, so I cc this message to the > authors. > > Arnt
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
