[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]

Eliot Lear wrote:

Sorry- we are talking about CONFIGURATION OF THE DEVICE.  WHAT BETTER
REASON TO MAKE THE PORT PRIVILEGED?!!


I guess you feel strongly about it then?  ;-)

Most of the WG doesn't seem to care either way.

The most compelling reason not to use a system port number is
to save them for the future.  Simon pointed out there are about 312 such
port numbers left. The difference between 309 and 312 isn't very compelling.
IMO, since CLI over SSH is by default on a system port, then NETCONF over SSH 
should do the same.  SOAP and BEEP mappings should be in the same range as
the SSH mapping, to be consistent.  (The default for SOAP over HTTPS is
a system port, as well as SOAP over BEEP.)   This would be consistent
with best current practice for CLI.

This seems to be more compelling logic than saving 3 system port numbers.

Unless there any strong objections,  we will ask for port numbers < 1024.



Eliot


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/>