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

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
>   
> > From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> > Cc: "Netconf (E-mail)" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]
> >     
> ...
>   
> > The current  practice with CLI, HTML, and SMI based network management
> > protocols is to use privileged port numbers.  Why is NETCONF different?
> >     
> ...
>
> It isn't a legacy protocol.
>   

Try telling operators that SSH, HTTP, and SNMP are legacy protocols.
This is pretty much all that's out there.


> But if folks think that using a particular port number will
> improve security, or that using a number less that 1024
> will simplify implementation or improve interoperability,
> I don't care enough about this to keep arguing the point.
>   

We don't think we are improving security.
It is about following current practice, 'best' or otherwise.
IMO, there is a strong pre-existing expectation that a configuration
protocol like NETCONF should be in the system port number range.


> Randy
>   

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/>
>
>
>   


--
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/>