Phil Shafer wrote:
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:But am amswer of "it doies not matter" does not help the IANA to make an assignment. We as a WG must choose. If it does not matter, then I guess we're saying >1024.Sorry, that was what I meant. If it doesn't matter to the netconf protocol, we shouldn't be eating the relatively scarce resource. Especially three of them.
I see your point. AFAIK, the WG never discussed the need for a port number < 1024 in any detail. Since our authorization schemes don't rely on a system port number to work ;-) and the WG never specifically decided this issue, we should revisit this question. Why do we need system port numbers? If we don't, then Phil is right, we should get numbers > 1024. (Eliot, do you have a response?)
Thanks, Phil
Andy -- to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>