In Section 19, it says:
"and most registries reserve some values for experimental and
testing use"
- What is the exact action you wish IANA to do, reserve half the
space for these? - I'm not clear...
On the port numbers part, this seems reasonable in approach, but
others may have more feeling on how these are managed for TCP and UDP.
By-the-way, UDPLite, simply said "use the UDP allocations".
Gorry
Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
------ Forwarded Message
From: Eddie Kohler <kohler at cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:49:35 -0800
To: dccp group <dccp at ietf.org>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>, Allison
Mankin
<mankin at psg.com>
Subject: Re: [dccp] port numbers and DCCP
Hi all,
I have posted a new dccp-spec RFC to our Web site. It is not yet
submitted, as I want to collect comments on the Port Numbers section
and possibly revise once more.
http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-spec-12.txt
http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-spec-12.ps
The spec deviates significantly from Magnus's suggested text. This
is because I believe it is important that DCCP port number
registrations fit into the existing Port Numbers registry.
Significant current code depends on the format and contents of the
Port Numbers registry, which is essentially copied in every /etc/
services in the world. I also wanted to express some usage
constraints on DCCP port numbers, but not require IANA to check those
constraints. The Port Number policy does not exactly fit First Come
First Served, so I left it off.
I've cut and pasted the Port Numbers section below. It refers to
"textual Service Codes"; I added an earlier small section on
representing Service Codes in text -- briefly, SC:fdpz,
SC=1717858426, and SC=x6664707A all represent the same Service Code
(1717858426).
Comments from interested listeners? Magnus? Allison? Colin? Lars?
Thanks,
Eddie
19.9. Port Numbers
DCCP applications may use service-contact port numbers to
provide
service to unknown callers, as in TCP and UDP. IANA is
therefore
requested to open the existing Port Numbers registry for DCCP
using
the following rules, which we intend to mesh well with existing
Port
Numbers registration procedures.
Port numbers are divided into three ranges. The Well Known
Ports
are those from 0 through 1023, the Registered Ports are those
from
1024 through 49151, and the Dynamic and/or Private Ports are
those
from 49152 through 65535. Well Known and Registered Ports are
intended for use by server applications that desire a default
contact point on a system. On most systems, Well Known Ports
can
only be used by system (or root) processes or by programs
executed
by privileged users, while Registered Ports can be used by
ordinary
user processes or programs executed by ordinary users. Dynamic
and/or Private Ports are intended for temporary use, including
client-side ports, out-of-band negotiated ports, and application
testing prior to registration of a dedicated port.
The Port Numbers registry should accept registrations for DCCP
ports
in the Well Known Ports and Registered Ports ranges. Well Known
and
Registered Ports SHOULD NOT be used without registration. In
contrast, Dynamic and/or Private Ports MUST NOT be registered.
Each port registration SHALL include the following information:
o The port number that is requested to be registered.
o A short port name, consisting entirely of letters (A-Z and
a-z),
digits (0-9), and the punctuation characters in "-_+./*" (not
including the quotes).
o A short English phrase describing the port's purpose. This
SHOULD include one or more space-separated textual Service
Code
descriptors naming the port's corresponding Service Codes
(see
Section 8.1.2).
o Name and contact information for the person or entity
performing
the registration, and possibly a reference to a document
defining
the port's use. Registrations coming from IETF working
groups
need only name the working group, but it is also
recommended to
indicate a contact person.
Registrants are encouraged to follow these guidelines when
applying
to register a port number:
o The same port name SHOULD NOT be registered for more than one
DCCP port number.
o A port name registered for TCP, UDP, and/or SCTP MAY be
registered for DCCP as well. However, any such registration
SHOULD use the same port number as the existing TCP, UDP,
and/or
SCTP registration.
o Multiple registrations for the same DCCP port with different
port
names are allowed, but discouraged. In any case, two
different
registrations for the same DCCP port MUST have disjoint
Service
Codes.
This document registers the following port, which should also be
considered a model registration.
discard 9/dccp Discard SC:DISC
# IETF dccp WG, Eddie Kohler <kohler at cs.ucla.edu>, DCCP RFC
The discard service, which accepts DCCP connections on the
discard
port, discards all incoming application data and sends no
data in
response. Thus, DCCP's discard port is analogous to TCP's
discard
port, and might be used to check the health of a DCCP stack.
------ End of Forwarded Message