1 / 6

Unified Port Registration Procedures for TCP/UDP, DCCP, SCTP, and SRV Names

This document aims to update and unify registration procedures for port numbers across various protocols. It focuses on syntax unification and introduces new allocation procedures while clarifying existing terms. It does not provide guidance to registrants or app designers. Current status: in WG last call.

tommy
Télécharger la présentation

Unified Port Registration Procedures for TCP/UDP, DCCP, SCTP, and SRV Names

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. IANA Service Name and Port Number Procedures draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 M. Cotton (ICANN), L. Eggert (Nokia), J. Touch (USC/ISI), M. Westerlund (Ericsson), S. Cheshire (Apple)

  2. Document Goals • Update registration procedures • Unify registries • “Updates” RFCs for above • What this doc is not: • Guidance to registrants/app designers • Specification of port/name spaces

  3. Doc Summary • Unify registries • TCP/UDP, DCCP, SCTP ports, SRV names • Unify syntax • 15 chars alphanum with hyphens; 1 alpha required • New allocation procedures • Deregister, reuse, revoke, transfer

  4. Changes since IETF 78 • Wording/clarification • Service name focus; port nums as secondary • Revise how transports are indicated (from IETF 78) • Replace ‘alias’ with ‘overloading’ (Sec 5) • Revised contact names (Sec 8) • Added contact resolution policy (Sec 8.7) • Syntax • Require a letter (Sec 5.1) • Remove coupling to srv-clarify doc • This doc unifies registries; does not change use or depend on changes to use (as in srv-clarify)

  5. Current Status • Document is currently in WG last call • Ends 26th of November • Cross posted to Apps-Discuss, DNSEXT WG • Please provide input

  6. WG Last Call Comments (so far) • Allocation, Assignment, Register mix (Tom Petch) • Allocation appears being the correct term • Need to update the document use terms consistently • Secondary Port for TLS/SSL (Paul Hoffman) • Experience from STARTTLS for SMTP (RFC 3207) is that it was complex and has security issues • A secondary port for TLS has been easier to implement and more successful • The concern is the port consumption doubles for TLS using services • Need to determine how serious these security concerns are • Have engaged the TLS group into this issue

More Related