[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: use of netconf to configure Unix systems
McDonald, Ira wrote:
Hi Joel,
+1
If Netconf really wants a "Well Known Port", then OK, let's
move on.
But it really is distressing that the IESG takes no active
part (apparently) in setting and enforcing policies for the
use of the remainder of this scarce resource.
A) I have asked the ADs for advice.
If we have no consensus, then do we have "rough consensus"?
Using the Olympics system (throw out the high and low scores),
the rough consensus is "don't really care".
But, if the WG can show sufficient justification, then system port
numbers
can be assigned.
B) scarce resource
If there is no point to EVER assigning any protocol to this range
anymore,
then it's no longer a resource, scarce or otherwise.
Either the assignment range matters, in which case I believe there is
sufficient
justification to ask for well known port numbers for NETCONF, or the
assignment range doesn't matter, and therefore all new static ports are
registered ports. I can live with either decision, but I would prefer
an actual IESG decision in this matter.
If I posed the question to operators as "Would it matter to you if SSH was
initially assigned a registered port number instead of a well-known port
number?"
I wonder if I would get the same answer as for NETCONF. (Yes -- "huh?" ;-)
This does need to be resolved soon.
Cheers,
- Ira
Andy
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:47 PM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: Eliot Lear; netconf
Subject: Re: use of netconf to configure Unix systems
minor: Ira and I are not the only people speaking up. I was struck
by the tone of the debate that was occurring, which is why I spoke up.
And just to clarify my own sloppiness, I realized after I wrote the
note that "root" rather than "kernel" is what is needed for a low
port, and that is indeed easier. But it is MUCH better to develop
and run applications without having to make them root, even
briefly. (The coupling of the various permissions within Unix is not
our problem, but that doesn't make it desirable.)
Given that, to paraphrase Phil's comment, it doesn't make that much
difference, it would seem more sensible to go for a higher
range port number.
However, neither Ira nor I speak for the IESG. Heck, I'm not even
speaking as a "reviewer", just as a participant / observer in this
working group.
I guess I just find "its appropriate to use low numbers for this" a
bad reason. From different perspectives, different things are
"privileged". I know many folks who will claim that the only really
privileged operation is collecting money. And others.......
Yours,
Joel
PS: I would prefer not to hang this protocol up on a debate about
whether <1024 ports should ever be given out. That would be a waste
of all our time.
At 09:40 PM 3/17/2006, Andy Bierman wrote:
There are ways to allow users specific access to root
programs (e,g,. 'su').
There is really no way to logically conclude this discussion.
You and Ira are arguing that no protocol should ever use the
system port
space again, including NETCONF. If this is IESG policy,
then I guess we
are done discussing it.
Some others have said the port number doesn't really matter,
except a bit for unix implementations, and some "legacy bias" against
using higher port numbers for system services. (Large "don't
care" camp)
Eliot and I are arguing that the task of configuring a
networking device
(a server, not a plain host!) is clearly a privileged task
in almost all
environments, which is NETCONF's chartered purpose. If
device configuration
and control isn't a system task on a networking device, then
I don't know what is.
If there are no possible reasons for assigning system port numbers
anymore, then IANA can stop asking which range the new protocol
should be assigned, and WGs like us don't need to argue about
anymore.
--
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/>