Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Review of HTTP Binding for DSKPP

[Barry Leiba <leiba at watson.ibm.com>]

> I am not sure whether the separate port number idea will find a lot of
> excitement since the downside is that a network operator that just does not
> care about the specific protocol (even through he does not mind allowing end
> hosts to run it) will essentially block it.

Hannes, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, so maybe you should 
explain more.  What I read it as saying is that you don't like using a separate 
port because you *want* to sneak through firewalls without telling the firewall 
administrators.  There be dragons, and that was Chris's point.  A protocol that 
looks like HTTP but is used for a different purpose should be on a different port.

Actually, I've had this argument with people within my company too, and it might 
be that we aren't clear about what the port-number list *is*: it should be more 
like a list that maps *applications*, rather than *protocols*, to ports.  In most 
cases, that's the same.  But with SMTP and HTTP, at least, it's not.

Barry



_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
APPS-REVIEW at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review