-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
draft-kuehlewind-system-ports-06.xml
230 lines (216 loc) · 16.1 KB
/
draft-kuehlewind-system-ports-06.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC6335 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6335.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4844 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4844.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8126 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="no"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-kuehlewind-system-ports-06" ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="Reassignment of System Ports">Reassignment of System Ports to the IESG</title>
<author fullname="Mirja Kühlewind" initials="M." role="editor"
surname="Kühlewind">
<organization>Ericsson GmbH</organization>
<address>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Sabrina Tanamal" initials="S."
surname="Tanamal">
<address>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2020" />
<abstract>
<t>In the IANA Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry,
a large number of System Ports are currently assigned to individuals or
companies who have registered the port for 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, such as when using a UDP port that was previously
unused, but was registered together with a respective TCP port. In such
cases the IESG has the change control for the protocol that is used on
the assigned port (as described in the corresponding RFC). However, as
the port is assigned to an individual or company, change control for the
port allocation is designated to others. Under existing operational
procedures, this means the original assignee needs to be involved in
changes to the port assignment, as the IESG does not have change control
for that port. As it is not always possible to get in touch with the
original assignee, particularly because of out-dated contact
information, handling historical allocation of System Ports does not
scale well on a case-by-case basis. To address this, this document
instructs IANA to perform actions with the goal to reassign System Ports
to the IESG that were assigned to individuals prior to the
publication of RFC6335, where appropriate.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>RFC 6335 <xref target="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 <xref target="RFC8126"/>. For assignments done based on requests in RFCs published via the "IETF Document Stream" <xref target="RFC4844"/>, the Assignee will be the IESG with the IETF Chair as the Contact.</t>
<t>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 a corresponding RFC. This lead to a situation where some System Ports are used by widely deployed IETF protocols where the protocol specification is under IETF change control (as defined in an RFC) but the port itself is not. This situation is especially problematic if the assignment gets or needs to be changed. The Assignee could request IANA to 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. </t>
<t>This document mainly aims to clarify the change control for protocols that are maintained by the IETF; it further also intends an update of currently unused or not maintained ports. For this purpose this document instructs IANA to perform accumulative actions with the goal to re-assign currently assigned System Ports in the range from 0 to 1023 to the IESG, where appropriate, 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.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>IANA [will perform/has performed] actions with the goal to re-assign System Ports in the port range from 0 to 1023 that are currently assigned in the "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml) to clarify the IESG's responisibility in managing those allocations. When the re-assignment is performd, the contact data for these assignments should be adjusted to reflect the IESG <[email protected]> as assignee and the IETF Chair <[email protected]> as point of contact. The original assignee and respective contact information should be preserved as a note against the revised assignment data.</t>
<t>To perform the re-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 [email protected] 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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:</t>
<texttable align="center">
<ttcol>Service Name</ttcol><ttcol>Port Number</ttcol><ttcol>Transport protocol</ttcol><ttcol>Reference</ttcol><ttcol>Assignment Notes</ttcol>
<c>systat</c><c>11</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC866</c><c></c>
<c>systat</c><c>11</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC866</c><c></c>
<c>qotd</c><c>17</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC865</c><c></c>
<c>qotd</c><c>17</c><c>upd</c><c>RFC865</c><c></c>
<c>msp</c><c>18</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1312</c><c></c>
<c>msp</c><c>18</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1312</c><c></c>
<c>chargen</c><c>19</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC864</c><c></c>
<c>chargen</c><c>19</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC864</c><c></c>
<c>smtp</c><c>25</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC5321</c><c></c>
<c>smtp</c><c>25</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC5321</c><c></c>
<c>time</c><c>37</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC868</c><c></c>
<c>time</c><c>37</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC868</c><c></c>
<c>rap</c><c>38</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1476</c><c></c>
<c>rap</c><c>38</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1476</c><c></c>
<c>rlp</c><c>39</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC887</c><c></c>
<c>rlp</c><c>39</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC887</c><c></c>
<c>nicname</c><c>43</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3912</c><c></c>
<c>nicname</c><c>43</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3912</c><c></c>
<c>tacacs</c><c>49</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1492</c><c></c>
<c>tacacs</c><c>49</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1492</c><c></c>
<c>domain</c><c>53</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1035</c><c></c>
<c>domain</c><c>53</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1035</c><c></c>
<c>whoispp</c><c>63</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1913</c><c></c>
<c>whoispp</c><c>63</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1913</c><c></c>
<c>bootps</c><c>67</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2131</c><c></c>
<c>bootps</c><c>67</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2131</c><c></c>
<c>bootpc</c><c>68</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2131</c><c></c>
<c>bootpc</c><c>68</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2131</c><c></c>
<c>tftp</c><c>69</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1350</c><c></c>
<c>tftp</c><c>69</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1350</c><c></c>
<c>gopher</c><c>70</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1436</c><c></c>
<c>gopher</c><c>70</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1436</c><c></c>
<c>finger</c><c>79</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1288</c><c></c>
<c>finger</c><c>79</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1288</c><c></c>
<c>www-http</c><c>80</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC7230, RFC7540</c><c></c>
<c>www-http</c><c>80</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC7230, RFC7540</c><c></c>
<c>kerberos</c><c>88</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC4120</c><c></c>
<c>kerberos</c><c>88</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC4120</c><c></c>
<c>dixie</c><c>96</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1249</c><c></c>
<c>dixie</c><c>96</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1249</c><c></c>
<c>hostname</c><c>101</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC953</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>hostname</c><c>101</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC953</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>cso</c><c>105</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2378</c><c></c>
<c>cso</c><c>105</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2378</c><c></c>
<c>rtelnet</c><c>107</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC818</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>rtelnet</c><c>107</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC818</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>pop2</c><c>109</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC937</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>pop2</c><c>109</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC937</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>pop3</c><c>110</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1939</c><c></c>
<c>pop3</c><c>110</c><c>udp</c><c></c><c></c>
<c>sunrpc</c><c>111</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1833</c><c></c>
<c>sunrpc</c><c>111</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1833</c><c></c>
<c>auth</c><c>113</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1413</c><c></c>
<c>auth</c><c>113</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1413</c><c></c>
<c>sftp</c><c>115</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC913</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>sftp</c><c>115</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC913</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>cfdptkt</c><c>120</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1235</c><c></c>
<c>cfdptkt</c><c>120</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1235</c><c></c>
<c>pwdgen</c><c>129</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC972</c><c></c>
<c>pwdgen</c><c>129</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC972</c><c></c>
<c>bftp</c><c>152</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1068</c><c></c>
<c>bftp</c><c>152</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1068</c><c></c>
<c>sgmp</c><c>153</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1028</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>sgmp</c><c>153</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1028</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>snmp</c><c>161</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3430</c><c></c>
<c>snmp</c><c>161</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3417</c><c></c>
<c>snmptrap</c><c>162</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3430</c><c></c>
<c>snmptrap</c><c>162</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3417</c><c></c>
<c>bgp</c><c>179</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC4271</c><c></c>
<c>bgp</c><c>179</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC4271</c><c></c>
<c>irc</c><c>194</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1459</c><c></c><!-- This one is strange, because RFC 1459 defines IRC, but proposes no ports. -->
<c>irc</c><c>194</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1459</c><c></c><!-- This one is strange, because RFC 1459 defines IRC, but proposes no ports. -->
<c>smux</c><c>199</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1227</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>smux</c><c>199</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1227</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>ipx</c><c>213</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1234</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>ipx</c><c>213</c><c>upd</c><c>RFC1234</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>mpp</c><c>218</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1204</c><c></c>
<c>mpp</c><c>218</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1204</c><c></c>
<c>bgmp</c><c>264</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3913</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>bgmp</c><c>264</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3913</c><c>This RFC is historic.</c>
<c>pt-tls</c><c>271</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC6876</c><c></c>
<c>pt-tls</c><c>271</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC6876</c><c></c>
<c>rtsps</c><c>322</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC7826</c><c></c>
<c>rtsps</c><c>322</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC7826</c><c></c>
<c>odmr</c><c>366</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2645</c><c></c>
<c>odmr</c><c>366</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2645</c><c></c>
<c>aurp</c><c>387</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1504</c><c></c>
<c>aurp</c><c>387</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1504</c><c></c>
<c>ldap</c><c>389</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC4516</c><c></c>
<c>ldap</c><c>389</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC4516</c><c></c>
<c>svrloc</c><c>427</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2608</c><c></c>
<c>svrloc</c><c>427</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2608</c><c></c>
<c>https</c><c>443</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC7230, RFC7540</c><c></c>
<c>https</c><c>443</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC7230, RFC7540</c><c></c>
<c>kpasswd</c><c>464</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3244</c><c></c>
<c>kpasswd</c><c>464</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3244</c><c></c>
<c>photuris</c><c>468</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2522</c><c></c>
<c>photuris</c><c>468</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2522</c><c></c>
<c>isakmp</c><c>500</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC7296</c><c></c>
<c>isakmp</c><c>500</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC7296</c><c></c>
<c>syslog</c><c>514</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC5426</c><c></c>
<c>syslog</c><c>514</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC5426</c><c></c>
<c>printer</c><c>515</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1179</c><c></c>
<c>printer</c><c>515</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC1179</c><c></c>
<c>router</c><c>520</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2453</c><c></c>
<c>router</c><c>520</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2453</c><c></c>
<c>ripng</c><c>521</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2080</c><c></c>
<c>ripng</c><c>521</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2080</c><c></c>
<c>rtsp</c><c>554</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC7826</c><c></c>
<c>rtsp</c><c>554</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC7826</c><c></c>
<c>vemmi</c><c>575</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2122</c><c></c>
<c>vemmi</c><c>575</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2122</c><c></c>
<c>ipp</c><c>631</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC8010</c><c></c>
<c>ipp</c><c>631</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC8010</c><c></c>
<c>msdp</c><c>639</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3618</c><c></c>
<c>msdp</c><c>639</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3618</c><c></c>
<c>ldp</c><c>646</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3036</c><c></c>
<c>ldp</c><c>646</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3036</c><c></c>
<c>rrp</c><c>648</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2832</c><c></c>
<c>rrp</c><c>648</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2832</c><c></c>
<c>aodv</c><c>654</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3561</c><c></c>
<c>aodv</c><c>654</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3561</c><c></c>
<c>acap</c><c>674</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2244</c><c></c>
<c>acap</c><c>674</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2244</c><c></c>
<c>olsr</c><c>698</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC3626</c><c></c>
<c>olsr</c><c>698</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC3626</c><c></c>
<c>agentx</c><c>705</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC2741</c><c></c>
<c>agentx</c><c>705</c><c>udp</c><c>RFC2741</c><c></c>
</texttable>
<t>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:</t>
<texttable align="center">
<ttcol>Service Name</ttcol><ttcol>Port Number</ttcol><ttcol>Transport protocol</ttcol><ttcol>Reference</ttcol><ttcol>Assignment Notes</ttcol>
<c>rmt</c><c>441</c><c>tcp</c><c>RFC1202</c><c>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.</c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>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 is not impacted by these changes to the registry.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
&RFC6335;
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
&RFC4844;
&RFC8126;
</references>
</back>
</rfc>