idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4340, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC4340 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list. (Using the creation date from RFC2780, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1999-07-19) (Using the creation date from RFC2782, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1998-09-02) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 26, 2009) is 5268 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCyyyy' is mentioned on line 949, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 793 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4020 (Obsoleted by RFC 7120) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1078 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4960 (Obsoleted by RFC 9260) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Transport Area Working Group M. Cotton 3 Internet-Draft ICANN 4 Updates: 2780, 2782, 4340 L. Eggert 5 (if approved) Nokia 6 Intended status: BCP A. Mankin 7 Expires: April 29, 2010 Johns Hopkins Univ. 8 J. Touch 9 USC/ISI 10 M. Westerlund 11 Ericsson 12 October 26, 2009 14 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management 15 of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry 16 draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material 22 from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly 23 available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the 24 copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF 25 Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the 26 IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from 27 the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this 28 document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and 29 derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards 30 Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to 31 translate it into languages other than English. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 35 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 36 Drafts. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 44 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 46 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 47 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 49 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010. 51 Copyright Notice 53 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 54 document authors. All rights reserved. 56 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 57 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 59 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 60 and restrictions with respect to this document. 62 Abstract 64 This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned 65 Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other 66 requests related to the transport protocol port number and service 67 name registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind 68 these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability 69 of the registry. 71 This document updates RFC2780 by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of 72 that RFC, it updates the IANA allocation procedures for DCCP as 73 defined in RFC4340, and it updates RFC2782 to clarify what a service 74 name is and how it is registered. 76 Table of Contents 78 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 4. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 5. Service Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 5.1. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records . . . . . . . . . . 8 84 6. Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 6.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation . . . . 9 86 7. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry 87 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 88 7.1. Past Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 89 7.2. Updated Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 90 7.3. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . 13 91 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service 92 Name Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 93 8.1. Port Number and Service Name Registration . . . . . . . . 14 94 8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration . . . . . . . 16 95 8.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use . . . . . . . . . . . 16 96 8.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation . . . . . . . . . 17 97 8.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 18 98 8.6. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 99 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 100 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 101 10.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 102 10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 20 103 10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 104 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 105 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 106 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 107 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 108 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 110 1. Introduction 112 For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number 113 values and service names for use with the Transmission Control 114 Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) 115 [RFC0768] have had less than clear guidelines. New transport 116 protocols have been added - the Stream Control Transmission Protocol 117 (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) 118 [RFC4342] - and new mechanisms have been developed (DNS SRV records 119 [RFC2782]), each with separate registries and separate guidelines. 120 The community recognized the need for additional procedures beyond 121 just assignment; notably modification, revocation, and release. 123 A key factor of this procedural streamlining is to establish 124 identical registration procedures for all IETF transport protocols. 125 This document brings the IANA procedures for TCP and UDP in line with 126 those already for SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a single process that 127 requesters and IANA follow for all requests for all transport 128 protocols, including those not yet defined. 130 In addition to detailing the IANA procedures for the initial 131 assignment of port numbers and service names, this document also 132 specifies post-assignment procedures that until now have been handled 133 in an ad hoc manner. These include procedures to de-register a port 134 number that is no longer in use, to re-use a port number allocated 135 for one application that is no longer in use for another application, 136 and procedure by which IANA can unilaterally revoke a prior port 137 number registration. Section 8 discusses the specifics of these 138 procedures and processes that requesters and IANA follow for all 139 requests for all current and future transport protocols. 141 It is important to note that ownership of registered port numbers and 142 service names remains with IANA. For protocols developed by IETF 143 working groups, IANA now also offers a method for the "early" 144 assignment of port numbers and service names [RFC4020], as described 145 in Section 8.1. 147 This document updates IANA's allocation guidelines [RFC2780] for UDP 148 and TCP port numbers by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of [RFC2780]. 149 (Note that different sections of [RFC2780] were updated in February 150 2008 by [RFC5237].) This document also updates the IANA allocation 151 procedures for DCCP as defined in [RFC4340]. It updates [RFC2782] to 152 clarify what a service name is and how it is registered, because 153 [RFC2782] simply refers to [RFC1700] when defining service names, 154 which in turn contains now-obsolete copies [RFC3232] of various IANA 155 registries [PORTREG][PROTSERVREG]. 157 2. Motivation 159 Information about the registration procedures for the port registry 160 has existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number 161 registrations on the IANA web site [SYSFORM] [USRFORM], an 162 introductory text section in the file listing the port number 163 registrations themselves [PORTREG], and two brief sections of the 164 IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780]. 166 Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been 167 historically unclear. Service names were originally created as 168 mnemonic identifiers for port numbers without a well-defined syntax, 169 beyond the 14-character limit mentioned on the IANA website [SYSFORM] 170 [USRFORM]. Even that length limit has not been consistently applied, 171 and some assigned service names are 15 characters long. When service 172 identification via DNS SRV RRs were introduced, the ambiguities in 173 the syntactic definition of the service namespace, together with a 174 requirement by IANA to only assign service names and port numbers in 175 combination, led to the creation of an ad hoc service name registry 176 outside of the control of IANA [SRVREG]. 178 It has also been historically unclear if the "name" entries 179 registered in the "Protocol and Service Names Registry" [PROTSERVREG] 180 can be used as service names. [RFC0952] defines the names in that 181 registry as either service names or protocol names. It is likely 182 that these names has been interpreted as being valid service names 183 and consequently have been used, e.g., in SRV records. This 184 motivates why this document merges the 166 protocol and service names 185 defined in that registry into the port number registry [PORTREG]. 187 This document aggregates all this scattered information into a single 188 reference that aligns and clearly defines the management procedures 189 for both port numbers and service names. It gives more detailed 190 guidance to prospective requesters of ports and service names than 191 the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures 192 for the management of the registry, so that management requests can 193 complete in a timely manner. 195 This document defines rules for registration of service names without 196 associated port numbers, for such usages as DNS SRV records, which 197 was not possible under the previous IANA procedures. These new 198 procedures also merge service name registrations from the non-IANA 199 "ad hoc" registry [SRVREG] and from the the IANA "Protocol and 200 Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] into the IANA "Port and Service 201 Name" registry [PORTREG], which from here on is the single 202 authoritative registry for service names and port numbers. 204 An additional purpose of this document is to describe the principles 205 that guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint 206 stewards of the port number registry. TCP and UDP have been a 207 remarkable success over the last decades. Thousands of applications 208 and application-level protocols have registered ports and service 209 names for their use, and there is every reason to believe that this 210 trend will continue into the future. It is hence extremely important 211 that management of the registry follow principles that ensure its 212 long-term usefulness as a shared resource. Section 7 discusses these 213 principles in detail. 215 3. Background 217 The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User 218 Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] have enjoyed a remarkable success 219 over the decades as the two most widely used transport protocols on 220 the Internet. They have relied on the concept of "ports" as logical 221 entities for Internet communication. Ports serve two purposes: 222 first, they provide a demultiplexing identifier to differentiate 223 transport sessions between the same pair of endpoints, and second, 224 they may also identify the application protocol and associated 225 service to which processes bind. Newer transport protocols, such as 226 the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the 227 Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342] have adopted 228 the concept of ports for their communication sessions and use 16-bit 229 port numbers in the same way as TCP and UDP (and UDP-Lite [RFC3828], 230 a variant of UDP). 232 Port numbers are the original and most widely used means for 233 application and service identification on the Internet. Ports are 234 16-bit numbers, and the combination of source and destination port 235 numbers together with the IP addresses of the communicating end 236 systems uniquely identifies a session of a given transport protocol. 237 Port numbers are also known by their corresponding service names such 238 as "telnet" for port number 23 and both "http" and "www" for port 239 number 80. 241 Hosts running services, hosts accessing services on other hosts, and 242 intermediate devices (such as firewalls and NATs) that restrict 243 services need to agree on which service corresponds to a particular 244 destination port. Although this is ultimately a local decision with 245 meaning only between the endpoints of a connection, most Internet 246 components use a single, shared view of this association, provided by 247 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) through the port 248 number registry [PORTREG]. 250 Over time, the assumption that a particular port number necessarily 251 implies a particular service may become less true. For example, 252 multiple instances of the same service can run on different ports on 253 the same host, or NATs that support port mapping or registration 254 [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp][UPnP] need to offer service instances using 255 the same port on several internal hosts available to the public 256 Internet on different ports. This document assumes, however, that 257 ports are most often used in a conventional manner - where endpoints 258 and intermediate devices all share the common view of the IANA port 259 number registry. 261 Applications either use numeric port numbers directly, look up port 262 numbers based on service names via system calls such as 263 getservbyname() on UNIX, look up port numbers by performing queries 264 for DNS SRV records [RFC2782][I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] or 265 determine port numbers in a variety of other ways [RFC1078]. 267 Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply 268 to IANA for an assigned port number and service name for a specific 269 application, and may - after successful registration - assume that no 270 other application will use that port number and service name for its 271 communication sessions. Alternatively, application designers may 272 also only ask for an assigned service name, if their application does 273 not require a fixed port number. The latter alternative is 274 encouraged when possible, in order to conserve the more limited port 275 number space. This includes, for example, applications that use DNS 276 SRV records to look up port numbers at runtime, or transports that 277 use service names not coupled to port numbers, e.g., TCP portnames 278 [I-D.touch-tcp-portnames]. 280 4. Conventions Used in this Document 282 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 283 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 284 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 285 [RFC2119]. 287 5. Service Names 289 Service names are the unique key in the Port and Service Name 290 registry. This unique symbolic name for a service may also be used 291 for other purposes, such as DNS SRV records [RFC2782]. Within the 292 registry, this unique key ensures that different services can be 293 unambiguously distinguished, thus preventing name collisions and 294 avoiding confusion about who is the registration owner of a 295 particular entry. 297 For each service name, there may exist zero or more associated port 298 number assignments. A port number assignment associated with a 299 service name contains the transport protocol, port number and 300 possibly additional data, such as a DCCP service code. There may be 301 more than one service name associated with a particular transport 302 protocol and port. This SHOULD only occur when all such service 303 names are aliases for the same service, such as with "www" and 304 "http". 306 Service names are assigned on a "first come, first served" basis, as 307 described in Section 8.1. Names should be brief and informative, 308 avoiding words or abbreviations that are redundant in the context of 309 the registry (e.g., "port", "service", "protocol", etc.) Names 310 referring to discovery services, e.g., using multicast or broadcast 311 to identify endpoints capable of a given service, SHOULD use an 312 easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc"). 314 5.1. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records 316 [RFC2782] defines SRV records for the DNS system. One part of the 317 DNS name of an SRV record includes what is called "SERVICE", i.e., a 318 symbolic name for the service. This document updates [RFC2782] in 319 order to clarify that the symbolic name ("SERVICE") SHALL only be a 320 service name as defined in this document that has been registered 321 with IANA and recorded in the port number and service name registry 322 [PORTREG]. This to ensure that only a single registry exist and name 323 collisions can be more easily avoided in the future. 325 6. Port Number Ranges 327 TCP, UDP (and UDP-Lite), SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for 328 their port number registries. The port registries for all these 329 transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers, and 330 Section 7.3 describes the IANA procedures for each range in detail: 332 o the Well Known Ports, also known as the System Ports, from 0-1023 333 (assigned by IANA) 335 o the Registered Ports, also known as the User Ports, from 1024- 336 49151 (assigned by IANA) 338 o the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private Ports, from 49152- 339 65535 (never assigned) 341 Of the assignable port ranges (Well Known and Registered, i.e., port 342 numbers 0-49151), individual port numbers are in one of three states 343 at any given time: 345 o Assigned: Assigned port numbers are currently allocated to the 346 service indicated in the registry. 348 o Unassigned: Unassigned port numbers are currently available for 349 assignment upon request, as per the procedures outlined in this 350 document. 352 o Reserved: Reserved port numbers are not available for regular 353 assignment; they are "assigned to IANA" for special purposes. 354 Reserved port numbers include values at the edges of each range, 355 e.g., 0, 1023, 1024, etc., which may be used to extend these 356 ranges or the overall port number space in the future. 358 In order to keep the size of the registry manageable, IANA typically 359 only records the Assigned and Reserved port numbers and service names 360 in the registry. Unassigned values are typically not explicitly 361 listed. 363 As a data point, when this document was written, approximately 76% of 364 the TCP and UDP Well Known Ports were assigned, and approximately 9% 365 of the Registered Ports were assigned. (As noted, Dynamic Ports are 366 never assigned.) 368 6.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation 370 Of the Well Known ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and 371 1022), together with their respective service names ("exp1" and 372 "exp2"), have been assigned for experimentation with new applications 373 and application-layer protocols that require a port number in the 374 assigned ports ranges [RFC4727]. 376 Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental and 377 Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] for how these 378 experimental port numbers are to be used. 380 This document registers the same two port numbers and service names 381 for experimentation with new application-layer protocols over SCTP 382 and DCCP in Section 10.2. 384 Unfortunately, it can be difficult to limit access to these ports. 385 Users SHOULD take measures to ensure that experimental ports are 386 connecting to the intended process. For example, users of these 387 experimental ports might include a 64-bit nonce, once on each segment 388 of a message-oriented channel (e.g., UDP), or once at the beginning 389 of a byte-stream (e.g., TCP), which is used to confirm that the port 390 is being used as intended. Such confirmation of intended use is 391 especially important when these ports are associated with privileged 392 (e.g., system or administrator) processes. 394 7. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry Management 396 Management procedures for the port number and service name registry 397 include allocation of port numbers and service names upon request, as 398 well as coordination of information about existing allocations. The 399 latter includes maintaining contact and description information about 400 assignments, revoking abandoned assignments, and redefining 401 assignments when needed. Of these procedures, port number allocation 402 is most critical, in order to continue to conserve the remaining port 403 numbers. 405 As noted earlier, only ~9% of the Registered Port space is currently 406 assigned. The current rate of assignment is approximately 400 ports/ 407 year, and has remained linear for the past 8 years. At that rate, if 408 similar conservation continues, this resource will sustain another 85 409 years of assignment - without the need to resort to reassignment of 410 released values or revocation. Note that the namespace available for 411 service names is even larger, which allows for a simpler management 412 procedures. 414 7.1. Past Principles 416 Before the publication of this document, the principles of port 417 number and service name management followed a few mostly undocumented 418 guidelines. They are recorded here for historical purposes, and this 419 document updates them in Section 7.2. These principles were: 421 o TCP and UDP ports were simultaneously allocated when either was 422 requested 424 o Port numbers were the primary allocation; service names were 425 informative only, and did not have a well-defined syntax 427 o Port numbers were conserved informally, and sometimes 428 inconsistently (e.g., some services were allocated ranges of many 429 port numbers even where not strictly necessary) 431 o SCTP and DCCP port number and service name registries were managed 432 separately from the TCP/UDP registries 434 o Service names could not be assigned in the ports registry without 435 assigning a corresponding port number at the same time 437 This document attempts to document, clarify and align these 438 guidelines in order to more conservatively manage the limited 439 remaining port number space and to enable and promote the use of 440 service names for service identification without associated port 441 numbers, where possible. 443 7.2. Updated Principles 445 This section summarizes the basic principles by which IANA attempts 446 to conserve the port number space. This description is intended to 447 inform applicants requesting port numbers. IANA decisions are not 448 required to be bound to these principles, however; other factors may 449 come into play, and exceptions may occur where deemed in the best 450 interest of the Internet. 452 The basic principle of port number registry management is to conserve 453 use of the port space where possible. Extensions to support larger 454 port number spaces would require changing many core protocols of the 455 current Internet in a way that would not be backward compatible and 456 interfere with both current and legacy applications. 458 Conservation of the port number space recognizes that because this 459 space is a limited resource, applications are expected to participate 460 in the traffic demultiplexing process where feasible. The port 461 numbers are expected to encode as little information as possible that 462 will still enable an application to perform further demultiplexing by 463 itself. In particular: 465 o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number per service or 466 application 468 o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all versions 469 of a service (e.g., running the service with or without a security 470 mechanism, or for updated variants of a service) 472 o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all different 473 types of devices using or participating in the same service 475 o IANA will allocate port numbers only for the transport protocols 476 explicitly named in an registration request 478 o IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of 479 de-registration, revocation, and transfer 481 o IANA may begin assigning service names that do not request a 482 corresponding port number allocation under a simple "First Come, 483 First Served" policy [RFC5226] (assignments involving port numbers 484 still require "Expert Review") 486 A given service is expected to further demultiplex messages where 487 possible. For example, applications and protocols are expected to 488 include in-band version information, so that future versions of the 489 application or protocol can share the same allocated port. 490 Applications and protocols are also expected to be able to 491 efficiently use a single allocated port for multiple sessions, either 492 by demultiplexing multiple streams within one port, or using the 493 allocated port to coordinate using dynamic ports for subsequent 494 exchanges (e.g., in the spirit of FTP [RFC0959]). 496 Ports are used in various ways, notably: 498 o as endpoint process identifiers 500 o as application protocol identifiers 502 o for firewall filtering purposes 504 The process and protocol identifier use suggests that anything a 505 single process can demultiplex, or that can be encoded into a single 506 protocol, should be. The firewall filtering use suggests that some 507 uses that could be de-multiplexed or encoded must be separated to 508 allow for firewall management. Note that this latter use is much 509 less sound, because port numbers have meaning only for the two 510 endpoints involved in a connection, and drawing conclusions about the 511 service that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is 512 inherently problematic. Further, previous separation of protocol 513 variants based on security capabilities (e.g., HTTP on port 80 vs. 514 HTTPS on port 443) is not recommended for new protocols, because all 515 should be security-capable and capable of negotiating the use of 516 security in-band. 518 IANA will begin assigning protocol numbers only for those transport 519 protocols explicitly included in a registration request. This ends 520 the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number 521 to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is only 522 for one of these transport protocols. The new allocation procedure 523 conserves resources by only allocating a port number to an 524 application for those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or 525 DCCP) it actually uses. The port number will be marked as Reserved - 526 instead of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other 527 transport protocols. When applications start supporting the use of 528 some of those additional transport protocols, their implementors MUST 529 request IANA to convert the reservation into an assignment. An 530 application MUST NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to 531 it for use with one transport protocol with another transport 532 protocol without asking IANA to convert the reservation into an 533 assignment. 535 Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow 536 previously allocated port numbers to become Unassigned, either 537 through de-registration or through revocation, and by a procedure 538 that lets application designers transfer an allocated but unused port 539 number to a new application. Section 8 describes these procedures, 540 which so far were undocumented. Port number conservation is also 541 improved by recommending that applications that do not require an 542 allocated port, e.g., because they can use service-name-based 543 lookups, chose this option and only register a service name. 545 7.3. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges 547 Section 6 describes the different port number ranges. It is 548 important to note that IANA applies slightly different procedures 549 when managing the different ranges of the port number registry: 551 o Ports in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) have been 552 specifically set aside for local and dynamic use and cannot be 553 registered through IANA. Applications may simply use them for 554 communication without any sort of registration. On the other 555 hand, applications MUST NOT assume that a specific port number in 556 the Dynamic Ports range will always be available for communication 557 at all times, and a port number in that range hence MUST NOT be 558 used as a service identifier. 560 o Ports in the Registered Ports range (1024-49151) are available for 561 registration through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers 562 upon successful registration. Because registering a port number 563 for a specific application consumes a fraction of the shared 564 resource that is the port number registry, IANA will require the 565 requester to document the intended use of the port number. This 566 documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" allocation 567 procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert 568 review the request to determine whether to grant the registration. 569 The submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number 570 in the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given 571 application. 573 o Ports in the Well Known Ports range (0-1023) are also available 574 for registration through IANA. Because the Well Known Ports range 575 is both the smallest and the most densely allocated, the 576 requirements for new allocations are more strict than those for 577 the Registered Ports range, and will only be granted under the 578 "IETF Review" allocation procedure [RFC5226]. A request for a 579 Well Known port number MUST document why using a port number from 580 both the Registered Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable 581 for the given application. 583 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service Name 584 Registry 586 This section describes the process for requests associated with 587 IANA's management of the port number and service name registry. Such 588 requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use, 589 changes to the service name, as well as updates to the contact 590 information or description associated with an assignment. Revocation 591 is initiated by IANA. 593 8.1. Port Number and Service Name Registration 595 Registration refers to the allocation of port numbers or service 596 names to applicants. All such registrations are made from port 597 numbers or service names that are Unassigned or Reserved at the time 598 of the allocation. Unassigned numbers and names are allocated as 599 needed, and without further explanation. Reserved numbers and names 600 are assigned only after review by IANA and the IETF, and are 601 accompanied by a statement explaining the reason a Reserved number or 602 name is appropriate for this action. 604 When a registration for one or more (but not all) transport protocols 605 is approved, the port number for the non-requested transport 606 protocol(s) will be marked as Reserved. IANA SHOULD NOT assign that 607 port number to any other application or service until no other port 608 numbers remain Unassigned in the requested range. The current 609 registration owner of a port number MAY register these Reserved port 610 numbers for other transport protocols when needed. 612 Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific 613 transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name 614 (but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all 615 transport protocols. 617 A port number or service name registration consists of the following 618 information: 620 o Registration Owner: Name and email address of the owner of the 621 registration. This is REQUIRED. For registrations done through 622 IETF-published RFCs, the registration ownership will belong to the 623 IETF and not the technical contact persons. 625 o Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the 626 technical contact person for the registration. This is REQUIRED. 627 For individuals, this is the same as the Registration Owner; for 628 organizations, this is a point of contact at that organization. 629 Additional address information MAY be provided. For registrations 630 done through IETF-published RFCs, one or more technical contact 631 persons SHALL be provided. 633 o Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service 634 associated with the registration request MUST be provided, for use 635 in various service selection and discovery mechanisms (including, 636 but not limited to, DNS SRV records [RFC2782]). Valid service 637 names MUST only contain these US-ASCII [ANSI.X3-4.1986] 638 characters: letters from A to Z, digits from 0 to 9, and hyphens 639 ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45). They MUST be at least one 640 character and no more than fifteen characters long, MUST NOT begin 641 or end with a hyphen, and MUST NOT consist of only digits (in 642 order to be distinguishable from port numbers, which are typically 643 written as all digits). In order to be unique, they MUST NOT be 644 identical to any currently registered service names in the IANA 645 registry [PORTREG]. Service names are case-insensitive; they may 646 be provided and entered into the registry with mixed case (e.g., 647 for clarity), but for the purposes of comparison, the case is 648 ignored. 650 o Port Number: If assignment of port number(s) is desired, either 651 the currently Unassigned port number(s) the requester suggests for 652 allocation or the tag "ANY" MUST be provided. If only a service 653 name is to be assigned, this field MUST be empty. If specific 654 port numbers are requested, IANA is encouraged to allocate the 655 suggested numbers. If the tag "ANY" is specified, IANA will 656 choose a suitable number from the Registered Ports range. Note 657 that the applicant MUST NOT use the suggested ports prior to the 658 completion of the registration. 660 o Transport Protocol: The transport protocol(s) for which the 661 allocation is requested MUST be provided. This field is currently 662 limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP. 664 o Service Code: A desired unique service code for the service 665 associated with the registration request. Service codes are 666 specific to the DCCP protocol [I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes]; the 667 request MUST include a desired service code when the registration 668 requests includes DCCP as a transport protocol, and MUST NOT 669 include one otherwise. 671 o Description: A short description of the service associated with 672 the registration request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the 673 most well known acronyms. 675 o Reference: A reference document describing the protocol or 676 application using this port, including whether the protocol 677 supports either broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication. 678 For registration requests for Registered Ports, this documentation 679 MUST explain why a port number in the Dynamic Ports range is 680 unsuitable for the given application. For registration requests 681 for Well Known Ports, this documentation MUST explain why a port 682 number in the Registered Ports or Dynamic Ports ranges is 683 unsuitable. 685 "Early" registration requests can be made by IETF working groups 686 without including such a reference document, although it is 687 RECOMMENDED that at least a reference to an Internet Draft 688 describing the work in progress is provided. 690 When IANA receives a registration request containing the above 691 information, they SHALL initiate an "Expert Review" [RFC5226] in 692 order to determine whether an assignment should be made. For 693 requests for service names that do not include port number 694 assignments, IANA MAY, at its discretion, skip the "Expert Review" 695 procedure and assign the service name under a simple "First Come 696 First Served" policy [RFC5226]. 698 8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration 700 The original requesters of a granted port number assignment can 701 return the port number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a 702 need for it. The port number will be de-registered and will be 703 marked as Reserved. IANA should not re-assign port numbers that have 704 been de-registered until all other available port numbers in the 705 specific range have been assigned. 707 Before proceeding with a port number de-registration, IANA needs to 708 reasonably establish that the value is actually no longer in use. 710 Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name 711 space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that a 712 given service name remain assigned even after all associated port 713 number assignments have become de-registered. Under this policy, it 714 will appear in the registry as if it had been created through a 715 service name registration request that did not include any port 716 numbers. 718 On rare occasions, it may still be useful to de-register a service 719 name. In such cases, IANA will mark the service name as Reserved. 720 IANA will involve their IESG-appointed expert in such cases. 722 8.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use 724 If the original requesters of a granted port number assignment no 725 longer have a need for the registered number, but would like to re- 726 use it for a different application, they can submit a request to IANA 727 to do so. 729 Logically, port number re-use is to be thought of as a de- 730 registration (Section 8.2) followed by an immediate re-registration 731 (Section 8.1) of the same port number for a new application. 732 Consequently, the information that needs to be provided about the 733 proposed new use of the port number is identical to what would need 734 to be provided for a new port number allocation for the specific 735 ports range. 737 Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name 738 space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that the 739 original service name associated with the prior use of the port 740 number remains assigned, and a new service be created and associated 741 with the port number. This is again consistent with viewing a re-use 742 request as a de-registration followed by an immediate re- 743 registration. Re-using an assigned service name for a different 744 application is NOT RECOMMENDED. 746 IANA needs to carefully review such requests before approving them. 747 In some instances, the Expert Reviewer will determine that the 748 application that the port number was assigned to has found usage 749 beyond the original requester, or that there is a concern that it may 750 have such users. This determination MUST be made quickly. A 751 community call concerning revocation of a port number (see below) MAY 752 be considered, if a broader use of the port number is suspected. 754 8.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation 756 A port number revocation can be thought of as an IANA-initiated de- 757 registration (Section 8.2), and has exactly the same effect on the 758 registry. 760 Sometimes, it will be clear that a specific port number is no longer 761 in use and that IANA can revoke it and mark it as Reserved. At other 762 times, it may be unclear whether a given assigned port number is 763 still in use somewhere in the Internet. In those cases, IANA must 764 carefully consider the consequences of revoking the port number, and 765 SHOULD only do so if there is an overwhelming need. 767 With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL 768 formulate a request to the IESG to issue a four-week community call 769 concerning the pending port number revocation. The IESG and IANA, 770 with the Expert Reviewer's support, SHALL determine promptly after 771 the end of the community call whether revocation should proceed and 772 then communicate their decision to the community. This procedure 773 typically involves similar steps to de-registration except that it is 774 initiated by IANA. 776 Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name 777 space compared to the port number space, revoking service names is 778 NOT RECOMMENDED. 780 8.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers 782 The value of port numbers and service names is defined by their 783 careful management as a shared Internet resource, whereas enabling 784 transfer allows the potential for associated monetary exchanges. As 785 a result, the IETF does not permit port number or service name 786 assignments to be transferred between parties, even when they are 787 mutually consenting. 789 The appropriate alternate procedure is a coordinated de-registration 790 and registration: The new party requests the port number or service 791 name via a registration and the previous party releases its 792 assignment via the de-registration procedure outlined above. 794 With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL 795 carefully determine if there is a valid technical, operational or 796 managerial reason before performing the transfer. 798 8.6. Maintenance Issues 800 The previous procedures help IANA manage the defining properties of 801 the port name and service name registry. There are additional 802 procedures which are administrative and help IANA maintain non- 803 defining information in a registration. This includes changes to the 804 Port Description and changes to Technical Contact information. (Note 805 that Registration Owner cannot be changed; see Section 8.5 above.) 806 These changes are coordinated by IANA in an informal manner, and may 807 be initiated by either the registrant or by IANA, e.g., the latter 808 when requesting an update to current contact information. 810 9. Security Considerations 812 The IANA guidelines described in this document do not change the 813 security properties of UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP. 815 Assignment of a port number or service name does not in any way imply 816 an endorsement of an application or product, and the fact that 817 network traffic is flowing to or from a registered port number does 818 not mean that it is "good" traffic, or even that it is used by the 819 assigned service. Firewall and system administrators should choose 820 how to configure their systems based on their knowledge of the 821 traffic in question, not whether there is a port number or service 822 name registered or not. 824 Services are expected to include support for security, either as 825 default or dynamically negotiated in-band. The use of separate port 826 number or service name assignments for secure and insecure variants 827 of the same service is to be avoided in order to discourage the 828 deployment of insecure services. 830 10. IANA Considerations 832 This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of the March 2000 IANA 833 Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780]. 835 Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to contact the 836 maintainer of the [SRVREG] registry, in order to merge the contents 837 of that private registry into the official IANA registry. It is 838 expected that the contents of [SRVREG] will at that time be replaced 839 with pointers to the IANA registry and to this RFC. 841 Similarly, IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in 842 the port number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the "Protocol and 843 Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not already have one 844 assigned. After that, IANA should investigate if the "Protocol and 845 Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] can be retired. 847 10.1. Service Name Consistency 849 Section 8.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service 850 names, which until now had not been clearly defined. The definition 851 in Section 8.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service 852 names with current and future service discovery mechanisms. 854 As of August 5, 2009 approximately 98% of the so-called "Short Names" 855 from existing port number registrations [PORTREG] meet the rules for 856 legal service names stated in Section 8.1, and hence will be used 857 unmodified. 859 The remaining approximately 2% of the exiting "Short Names" are not 860 suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because 861 they contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, plusses, 862 slashes, or underscores. All existing "Short Names" conform to the 863 length requirement of 15 characters or less. For these unsuitable 864 "Short Names", listed in the table below, the service name will be 865 the Short Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens. IANA 866 SHALL add an alias to the registry that assigns a well-formed service 867 name for the existing service but otherwise duplicates the original 868 assignment information. In the description field of the new alias, 869 IANA SHALL record that it assigns a well-formed service name for the 870 previous service and point to the original assignment. In the 871 description field of the original assignment, IANA SHALL add a note 872 that the service name is historic, is not usable with many common 873 service discovery mechanisms, and provide a reference to the new 874 alias, which can be used in this way. 876 Names containing illegal characters to be replaced by hyphens: 878 +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ 879 | 914c/g | acmaint_dbd | acmaint_transd | 880 | atex_elmd | avanti_cdp | badm_priv | 881 | badm_pub | bdir_priv | bdir_pub | 882 | bmc_ctd_ldap | bmc_patroldb | boks_clntd | 883 | boks_servc | boks_servm | broker_service | 884 | bues_service | canit_store | cedros_fds | 885 | cl/1 | contamac_icm | corel_vncadmin | 886 | csc_proxy | cvc_hostd | dbcontrol_agent | 887 | dec_dlm | dl_agent | documentum_s | 888 | dsmeter_iatc | dsx_monitor | elpro_tunnel | 889 | elvin_client | elvin_server | encrypted_admin | 890 | erunbook_agent | erunbook_server | esri_sde | 891 | EtherNet/IP-1 | EtherNet/IP-2 | event_listener | 892 | flr_agent | gds_db | ibm_wrless_lan | 893 | iceedcp_rx | iceedcp_tx | iclcnet_svinfo | 894 | idig_mux | ife_icorp | instl_bootc | 895 | instl_boots | intel_rci | interhdl_elmd | 896 | lan900_remote | LiebDevMgmt_A | LiebDevMgmt_C | 897 | LiebDevMgmt_DM | mapper-ws_ethd | matrix_vnet | 898 | mdbs_daemon | menandmice_noh | msl_lmd | 899 | nburn_id | ncr_ccl | nds_sso | 900 | netmap_lm | nms_topo_serv | notify_srvr | 901 | novell-lu6.2 | nuts_bootp | nuts_dem | 902 | ocs_amu | ocs_cmu | pipe_server | 903 | pra_elmd | printer_agent | redstorm_diag | 904 | redstorm_find | redstorm_info | redstorm_join | 905 | resource_mgr | rmonitor_secure | rsvp_tunnel | 906 | sai_sentlm | sge_execd | sge_qmaster | 907 | shiva_confsrvr | sql*net | srvc_registry | 908 | stm_pproc | subntbcst_tftp | udt_os | 909 | universe_suite | veritas_pbx | vision_elmd | 910 | vision_server | wrs_registry | z39.50 | 911 +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ 913 In the case of "whois++", the service name will be "whoisplusplus". 915 10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation 917 Two Well Known UDP and TCP ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved 918 for experimental use [RFC4727]. This document registers the same 919 port numbers for SCTP and DCCP, and also instructs IANA to 920 automatically register these two port numbers for any new transport 921 protocol that will in the future share the port number namespace. 923 Note that these port numbers are meant for temporary experimentation 924 and development in controlled environments. Before using these port 925 numbers, carefully consider the advice in Section 6.1 in this 926 document, as well as in Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental 927 and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692]. Most importantly, 928 application developers must request a permanent port number 929 assignment from IANA as described in Section 8.1 before any kind of 930 non-experimental deployment. 932 +--------------------------------+----------------------------+ 933 | Registration Technical Contact | IESG | 934 | Registration Owner | IETF | 935 | Transport Protocol | SCTP, DCCP | 936 | Port Number | 1021 | 937 | Port Name | RFC3692-style Experiment 1 | 938 | Service Name | exp1 | 939 | Reference | [RFCyyyy] | 940 +--------------------------------+----------------------------+ 942 +--------------------------------+----------------------------+ 943 | Registration Technical Contact | IESG | 944 | Registration Owner | IETF | 945 | Transport Protocol | SCTP, DCCP | 946 | Port Number | 1022 | 947 | Port Name | RFC3692-style Experiment 2 | 948 | Service Name | exp2 | 949 | Reference | [RFCyyyy] | 950 +--------------------------------+----------------------------+ 952 [RFC Editor Note: Please change "yyyy" to the RFC number allocated to 953 this document before publication.] 955 10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries 957 This document updates the IANA allocation procedures for the DCCP 958 Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries [RFC4340]. 960 10.3.1. DCCP Service Code Registry 962 Service Codes are allocated first-come-first-served according to 963 Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification [RFC4340]. This document 964 updates that section by extending the guidelines given there in the 965 following ways: 967 o IANA MAY assign new Service Codes without seeking Expert Review 968 using their discretion, but SHOULD seek expert review if a request 969 seeks more than five Service Codes. 971 o IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer with 972 questions on any registry, regardless of the registry policy, for 973 clarification or if there is a problem with a request [RFC4340]. 975 10.3.2. DCCP Port Numbers Registry 977 The DCCP ports registry is defined by Section 19.9 of the DCCP 978 specification [RFC4340]. Allocations in this registry require prior 979 allocation of a Service Code. Not all Service Codes require IANA- 980 registered ports. This document updates that section by extending 981 the guidelines given there in the following way: 983 o IANA should normally assign a value in the range 1024-49151 to a 984 DCCP server port. IANA allocation requests to allocate port 985 numbers in the Well Known Ports range (0 through 1023), require an 986 "IETF Review" [RFC5226] prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340]. 988 o IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than 989 one DCCP server port. 991 o The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server port 992 should be recorded in the ports registry. 994 o A request for additional Service Codes to be associated with an 995 already allocated Port Number requires Expert Review. These 996 requests will normally be accepted when they originate from the 997 contact associated with the port registration. In other cases, 998 these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port, 999 when this is available. 1001 The DCCP specification [RFC4340] notes that a short port name MUST be 1002 associated with each DCCP server port that has been registered. This 1003 document requires that this name MUST be unique. 1005 11. Acknowledgments 1007 The text in Section 10.3 is based on a suggestion by Tom Phelan. 1009 Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project [TRILOGY], a 1010 research project supported by the European Commission under its 1011 Seventh Framework Program. 1013 12. References 1015 12.1. Normative References 1017 [ANSI.X3-4.1986] 1018 American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character 1019 Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information 1020 Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986. 1022 [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, 1023 August 1980. 1025 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1026 RFC 793, September 1981. 1028 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1029 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1031 [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For 1032 Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", 1033 BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000. 1035 [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and 1036 G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol 1037 (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004. 1039 [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of 1040 Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, 1041 February 2005. 1043 [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram 1044 Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. 1046 [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, 1047 ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. 1049 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1050 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 1051 May 2008. 1053 12.2. Informative References 1055 [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] 1056 Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service 1057 Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05 (work in 1058 progress), September 2008. 1060 [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] 1061 Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)", 1062 draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008. 1064 [I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes] 1065 Fairhurst, G., "The DCCP Service Code", 1066 draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-11 (work in progress), 1067 May 2009. 1069 [I-D.touch-tcp-portnames] 1070 Touch, J., "A TCP Option for Port Names", 1071 draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00 (work in progress), 1072 April 2006. 1074 [PORTREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Port Numbers 1075 Registry", http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. 1077 [PROTSERVREG] 1078 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Protocol and 1079 Service Names Registry", 1080 http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names. 1082 [RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet 1083 host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985. 1085 [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", 1086 STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. 1088 [RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", 1089 RFC 1078, November 1988. 1091 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 1092 October 1994. 1094 [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for 1095 specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, 1096 February 2000. 1098 [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by 1099 an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002. 1101 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 1102 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 1104 [RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for 1105 Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion 1106 Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, 1107 March 2006. 1109 [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", 1110 RFC 4960, September 2007. 1112 [RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for 1113 the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008. 1115 [SRVREG] "DNS SRV Service Types Registry", 1116 http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html. 1118 [SYSFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application 1119 for System (Well Known) Port Number", 1120 http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl. 1122 [TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/. 1124 [UPnP] UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) V 1.0", 1125 November 2001. 1127 [USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application 1128 for User (Registered) Port Number", 1129 http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl. 1131 Authors' Addresses 1133 Michelle Cotton 1134 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1135 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 1136 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 1137 USA 1139 Phone: +1 310 823 9358 1140 Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org 1141 URI: http://www.iana.org/ 1143 Lars Eggert 1144 Nokia Research Center 1145 P.O. Box 407 1146 Nokia Group 00045 1147 Finland 1149 Phone: +358 50 48 24461 1150 Email: lars.eggert@nokia.com 1151 URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/ 1152 Allison Mankin 1153 Johns Hopkins University 1155 Phone: +1 301 728 7199 1156 Email: mankin@psg.com 1157 URI: http://www.psg.com/~mankin/ 1159 Joe Touch 1160 USC/ISI 1161 4676 Admiralty Way 1162 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 1163 USA 1165 Phone: +1 310 448 9151 1166 Email: touch@isi.edu 1167 URI: http://www.isi.edu/touch 1169 Magnus Westerlund 1170 Ericsson 1171 Torshamsgatan 23 1172 Stockholm 164 80 1173 Sweden 1175 Phone: +46 8 719 0000 1176 Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com