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

[Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>]

Joel,
> (As far as I can tell, the distinction between <1024 and >1024 ought
> to be removed.  There is nothing the IETF is defining that benefits
> from that distinct.  that abolition is enhanced if we stop trying to
> make special use of <1024 port.  If that were my only reason, or even
> the most important reason, I wouldn't bother sending this.)
I think your parenthetical comment is perhaps the one worth discussing. 
I don't think we would care if we were talking about a finger server,
which sits on port 79 or a UNIX talk server, which seemingly on its own
gobbles up more ports than NETCONF.  So far as I can tell, the only
difference is for those operating systems that want to provide a small
amount of protection against non-privileged process access.  Arguably
that's an implementation issue and really ought not be the subject of
standardization.

Given that it exists, when SHOULD something be assigned <1024?

Eliot

--
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/>