![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Hi - > From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema at windows.microsoft.com> > To: "Eliot Lear" <lear at cisco.com>; "IETF Discussion" <ietf at ietf.org> > Cc: "IANA" <iana at iana.org>; "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa at osafoundation.org>; "netconf" <netconf at ops.ietf.org> > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:44 AM > Subject: RE: Guidance needed on well known ports ... > > 2. If they are not archaic, under what circumstances should they be > > allocated? > > I have no problem with the current system. ... So, under "the current system" (in netconf we're trying to figure out just what that is) should this protocol be assigned a port number above or below 1024? Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.