1 / 4

REVISED Port Number Procedures DRAFT

This document outlines the revised procedures for port number assignments by IANA, as presented by Michelle Cotton at IETF-70 in Vancouver. It highlights current issues with RFC 2780 and proposes new guidelines aimed at improving clarity and conservation of port number space. Key proposals include the elimination of NDAs for experts, exclusive designation requests from the IESG, and recommendations for assigning ports aligned with service names. It also addresses the differences in guidelines for various protocols like TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.

afra
Télécharger la présentation

REVISED Port Number Procedures DRAFT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REVISED Port Number ProceduresDRAFT TSVAREA WG Meeting Vancouver, IETF-70 Presented by: Michelle Cotton, IANA

  2. Current Guidelines • Currently defined in RFC 2780 but not clear • Ports assigned via IANA paid ‘expert’ reviewer (no other registry has this) • Currently allow NDA - This causes issues when having an official expert designated • Assign both the TCP and UDP • Guidelines for SCTP and DCCP are different

  3. Proposed Guidelines • IANA requesting official designation of expert(s) by the IESG • NO NDA’s • Port number space conservation and clarity • Only assign what the requester is asking (example UDP only) and reserve the others • Approximately 15-20 ports assigned in November October • Not retroactive

  4. Remaining issues • A discussion distinct from the port registry update document willneed to define how port number allocation interacts with service names • Requests for service names without number • Renaming existing ports (eg. Reusing port number for new protocol) • Well known (0-1023) vs. Registered (1024+) • XML’izing the port numbers registry

More Related