Reassignment of System Ports to the IESG
draft-kuehlewind-system-ports-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mirja Kühlewind , Sabrina Tanamal | ||
| Last updated | 2019-01-25 (Latest revision 2018-03-05) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Publication Requested::AD Followup | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Alexey Melnikov | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-kuehlewind-system-ports-03
Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
Internet-Draft ETH Zurich
Intended status: Standards Track S. Tanamal
Expires: December 9, 2018 June 7, 2018
Reassignment of System Ports to the IESG
draft-kuehlewind-system-ports-03
Abstract
In the IANA Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry,
a large number of System Ports is currently assigned to individuals
or companies who have registered the port for the use with a certain
protocol before RFC6335 was published. For some of these ports, RFCs
exist that describe the respective protocol; for others, RFCs are
under development that define, re-define, or assign the protocol used
for the respective port, e.g. in case of so-far unused UDP ports that
have been registered together with the respective TCP port. In these
cases the IESG has the change control about the protocol used on the
port (as described in an RFC) but does not have the change control
about the port usage itself. Currently, to transfer the change
control to the IESG, the original assignee has to be contacted to
initialize this transfer. As it is not always possible to get in
touch with the original assignee, e.g. because of out-dated contact
information or other reasons, and the current practice of case-by-
case changes does not scale well, this document instructs IANA to
perform actions with the goal to reassigns all System Ports to the
IESG that have been assigned to individuals prior to the publication
of RFC6335.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2018.
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Reassignment of System Ports June 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
RFC 6335 [RFC6335] requires System Ports, also known as the Well
Known Ports, in the range from 0 to 1023, to be assigned by the "IETF
Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC8126]. For assignments
done through RFCs published via the "IETF Document Stream" [RFC4844],
the Assignee will be the IESG with the IETF Chair as the Contact.
However, ports that were assigned before the publication of RFC 6335,
are often assigned to individuals, even if they are part of the
System Port range and have an corresponding RFC. Besides the fact
that System Ports are widely used by IETF protocols where the
protocol specification is under IETF change control as defined in an
RFC but the port itself may not, this situation is especially
problematic if the assignment gets or needs to be changed. The
Assignee, can change the assignment without confirmation of the IETF.
However, if the IETF process requires a change, including de-
assignment, this cannot be done without the agreement of the original
Assignee. Furthermore, no procedure is defined to change the
assignment in cases where the original Assignee is not reachable or
not available anymore.
This document instructs IANA to perform actions with the goal to re-
assign all currently assigned System Ports in the range from 0 to
1023 to the IESG, which will also help to align existing entries in
the "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" with
the current procedures defined in RFC 6335.
2. IANA Considerations
IANA [will perform/has performed] action to re-assign all System
Ports in the port range from 0 to 1023 that are currently assigned in
the "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry"
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Reassignment of System Ports June 2018
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-
names-port-numbers.xhtml) to the IESG <iesg@ietf.org> as Assignee and
the IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> as Contact. The original Assignee
and respective contact information should be preserved as a
Assignment note "Originally assigned to $Assignee <$Contact>" where
$Assignee is the current value in the Assignee column and $Contact is
the current value in the Contact column.
To perform the assignment, IANA is requested to contact the current
Assignees by email with the registered email address to request the
transfer. If the provided email address is not valid anymore, IANA
is requested to report this to the IESG, and the IESG is requested to
perform actions, such as sending requests to the ietf@ietf.org
mailing list to determine updated contact information. If these
actions do not show success within 4 weeks, the IESG is requested to
make a decision about the re-assignment of the port in question.
IANA is requested to send the following request to each current
Assignees:
"Dear $Assignee, We currently have you listed as the assignee for
$Port in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Registry. This port is part of the System Ports range which has a
registration policy of "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" as defined in
RFC6335. To enable future documentation in the RFC series of the
protocol in use for this port, we would like to request a
confirmation for a de-assignment of $Port to enable a subsequent re-
assignment to the IESG. This would mean replacing your contact
information under the assignee and contact fields in the registry
with the IESG. Your contact information will still be noted in the
registry as the original assignee unless you prefer it removed.
Please let us know if you have any objections to this change or if
the port is known not to be used (anymore), and can be marked as
Reserved. If you have information about a publicly available
specification of the protocol in use on the respective port that is
not noted in the registry yet, please let us know, and we'll update
the notes in the registry accordingly."
If the current Assignee does not agree to the re-assignment or does
not reply within four weeks, IANA is requested to inform the IESG
which then is requested to make a decision about the re-assignment of
the port in question.
Before the start of this re-assignment process, IANA [will also
update/has further updated] the Reference column with the following
reference for the listed ports that have a corresponding published
RFC that uses this port number, as well as the Assignment Notes
column for historic RFCs:
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Reassignment of System Ports June 2018
+-----------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Service | Port | Transport | Reference | Assignment |
| Name | Number | protocol | | Notes |
+-----------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| systat | 11 | tcp | RFC866 | |
| systat | 11 | udp | RFC866 | |
| qotd | 17 | tcp | RFC865 | |
| qotd | 17 | upd | RFC865 | |
| msp | 18 | tcp | RFC1312 | |
| msp | 18 | udp | RFC1312 | |
| chargen | 19 | tcp | RFC864 | |
| chargen | 19 | udp | RFC864 | |
| smtp | 25 | tcp | RFC5321 | |
| smtp | 25 | udp | RFC5321 | |
| time | 37 | tcp | RFC868 | |
| time | 37 | udp | RFC868 | |
| rap | 38 | tcp | RFC1476 | |
| rap | 38 | udp | RFC1476 | |
| rlp | 39 | tcp | RFC887 | |
| rlp | 39 | udp | RFC887 | |
| nicname | 43 | tcp | RFC3912 | |
| nicname | 43 | udp | RFC3912 | |
| tacacs | 49 | tcp | RFC1492 | |
| tacacs | 49 | udp | RFC1492 | |
| domain | 53 | tcp | RFC1035 | |
| domain | 53 | udp | RFC1035 | |
| whoispp | 63 | tcp | RFC1913 | |
| whoispp | 63 | udp | RFC1913 | |
| bootps | 67 | tcp | RFC2131 | |
| bootps | 67 | udp | RFC2131 | |
| bootpc | 68 | tcp | RFC2131 | |
| bootpc | 68 | udp | RFC2131 | |
| tftp | 69 | tcp | RFC1350 | |
| tftp | 69 | udp | RFC1350 | |
| gopher | 70 | tcp | RFC1436 | |
| gopher | 70 | udp | RFC1436 | |
| finger | 79 | tcp | RFC1288 | |
| finger | 79 | udp | RFC1288 | |
| www-http | 80 | tcp | RFC7230, | |
| | | | RFC7540 | |
| www-http | 80 | udp | RFC7230, | |
| | | | RFC7540 | |
| kerberos | 88 | tcp | RFC4120 | |
| kerberos | 88 | udp | RFC4120 | |
| dixie | 96 | tcp | RFC1249 | |
| dixie | 96 | udp | RFC1249 | |
| hostname | 101 | tcp | RFC953 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Reassignment of System Ports June 2018
| hostname | 101 | udp | RFC953 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| cso | 105 | tcp | RFC2378 | |
| cso | 105 | udp | RFC2378 | |
| rtelnet | 107 | tcp | RFC818 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| rtelnet | 107 | udp | RFC818 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| sunrpc | 111 | tcp | RFC1833 | |
| sunrpc | 111 | udp | RFC1833 | |
| auth | 113 | tcp | RFC1413 | |
| auth | 113 | udp | RFC1413 | |
| sftp | 115 | tcp | RFC913 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| sftp | 115 | udp | RFC913 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| cfdptkt | 120 | tcp | RFC1235 | |
| cfdptkt | 120 | udp | RFC1235 | |
| pwdgen | 129 | tcp | RFC972 | |
| pwdgen | 129 | udp | RFC972 | |
| imap | 143 | tcp | RFC3501 | |
| imap | 143 | udp | RFC3501 | |
| bftp | 152 | tcp | RFC1068 | |
| bftp | 152 | udp | RFC1068 | |
| sgmp | 153 | tcp | RFC1028 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| sgmp | 153 | udp | RFC1028 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| snmp | 161 | tcp | RFC3430 | |
| snmp | 161 | udp | RFC3417 | |
| snmptrap | 162 | tcp | RFC3430 | |
| snmptrap | 162 | udp | RFC3417 | |
| bgp | 179 | tcp | RFC4271 | |
| bgp | 179 | udp | RFC4271 | |
| irc | 194 | tcp | RFC1459 | |
| irc | 194 | udp | RFC1459 | |
| smux | 199 | tcp | RFC1227 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| smux | 199 | udp | RFC1227 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| ipx | 213 | tcp | RFC1234 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| ipx | 213 | upd | RFC1234 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| mpp | 218 | tcp | RFC1204 | |
| mpp | 218 | udp | RFC1204 | |
| bgmp | 264 | tcp | RFC3913 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Reassignment of System Ports June 2018
| bgmp | 264 | udp | RFC3913 | This RFC is |
| | | | | historic. |
| pt-tls | 271 | tcp | RFC6876 | |
| pt-tls | 271 | udp | RFC6876 | |
| rtsps | 322 | tcp | RFC7826 | |
| rtsps | 322 | udp | RFC7826 | |
| odmr | 366 | tcp | RFC2645 | |
| odmr | 366 | udp | RFC2645 | |
| aurp | 387 | tcp | RFC1504 | |
| aurp | 387 | udp | RFC1504 | |
| ldap | 389 | tcp | RFC4516 | |
| ldap | 389 | udp | RFC4516 | |
| svrloc | 427 | tcp | RFC2608 | |
| svrloc | 427 | udp | RFC2608 | |
| https | 443 | tcp | RFC7230, | |
| | | | RFC7540 | |
| https | 443 | udp | RFC7230, | |
| | | | RFC7540 | |
| kpasswd | 464 | tcp | RFC3244 | |
| kpasswd | 464 | udp | RFC3244 | |
| photuris | 468 | tcp | RFC2522 | |
| photuris | 468 | udp | RFC2522 | |
| isakmp | 500 | tcp | RFC7296 | |
| isakmp | 500 | udp | RFC7296 | |
| syslog | 514 | tcp | RFC5426 | |
| syslog | 514 | udp | RFC5426 | |
| printer | 515 | tcp | RFC1179 | |
| printer | 515 | udp | RFC1179 | |
| router | 520 | tcp | RFC2453 | |
| router | 520 | udp | RFC2453 | |
| ripng | 521 | tcp | RFC2080 | |
| ripng | 521 | udp | RFC2080 | |
| rtsp | 554 | tcp | RFC7826 | |
| rtsp | 554 | udp | RFC7826 | |
| vemmi | 575 | tcp | RFC2122 | |
| vemmi | 575 | udp | RFC2122 | |
| ipp | 631 | tcp | RFC8010 | |
| ipp | 631 | udp | RFC8010 | |
| msdp | 639 | tcp | RFC3618 | |
| msdp | 639 | udp | RFC3618 | |
| ldp | 646 | tcp | RFC3036 | |
| ldp | 646 | udp | RFC3036 | |
| rrp | 648 | tcp | RFC2832 | |
| rrp | 648 | udp | RFC2832 | |
| aodv | 654 | tcp | RFC3561 | |
| aodv | 654 | udp | RFC3561 | |
| acap | 674 | tcp | RFC2244 | |
| acap | 674 | udp | RFC2244 | |
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Reassignment of System Ports June 2018
| olsr | 698 | tcp | RFC3626 | |
| olsr | 698 | udp | RFC3626 | |
| agentx | 705 | tcp | RFC2741 | |
| agentx | 705 | udp | RFC2741 | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
As part of this maintenance effort, IANA [will further add/has
further added] the following entry in addition to the existing entry
for port 441 with the IESG as Assignee and the IETF chair as Contact:
+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+------------------------+
| Service | Port | Transport | Reference | Assignment Notes |
| Name | Number | protocol | | |
+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+------------------------+
| rmt | 441 | tcp | RFC1202 | For historical |
| | | | | reasons, multiple |
| | | | | registrations exist |
| | | | | for the same port |
| | | | | number. Clients need |
| | | | | to have prior |
| | | | | knowledge of which |
| | | | | service is provided by |
| | | | | the server on that |
| | | | | port in order to make |
| | | | | use of it. |
+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+------------------------+
3. Security Considerations
This draft instructs IANA to perform actions on the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry. It does not change the use
of the ports or protocols running on them. Therefore the security of
these protocols in not impacted by these changes to the registry.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Reassignment of System Ports June 2018
4.2. Informative References
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
July 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses
Mirja Kuehlewind (editor)
ETH Zurich
Email: ietf@kuehlewind.net
Sabrina Tanamal
Email: sabrina.tanamal@iana.org
Kuehlewind & Tanamal Expires December 9, 2018 [Page 8]