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

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
> To: "'Sharon Chisholm'" <schishol@nortel.com>; "Netconf (E-mail)" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:03 AM
> Subject: RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]
...
> (1) IANA-assigned "Well Known Port" (0 to 1023)
>     - approximately 70% are now assigned 
>     - very scarce resource
> 
> (2) IANA-assigned "Registered Port" (1024 to 49151)
>     - approximately %12 are now assigned 
>     - plentiful resource
> 
> (3) Unregistered "Dynamic or Private Port" (49152 to 65535)
>     - not a reasonable choice for NetConf or any standard service
> 
> Option (2) is obviously the prudent choide.

I strongly agree.

> It is not possible to use NetConf (or SHOULD NOT be) without
> strong authentication - in any case, security professionals
> do NOT accept the pseudo-security of "well known ports" based
> on their numeric values.
...

I find this rationale far more convincing than any of the
others put forth on this thread.

Randy


--
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/>