Re: Use of system port vs. regular port

Late as ever :-(, as well as the discussion on the syslog list I alluded to
there was also a lengthy discussion about this towards the end of March 2006 on
the main IETF list. Netconf also debated it around that time.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "tom.petch" <[email protected]>
To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Use of system port vs. regular port


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:08 PM
> Subject: [Syslog] Use of system port vs. regular port
>
>
> > Lars Eggert has entered a DISCUSS on draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls
> > asking
> >
> > "What is the justification for allocating a system port? Why wouldn't a
> > registered port suffice?
> > (Note that IANA is changing procedures such that system ports are
> > becoming more difficult to obtain, because we're running out of them.)"
> >
> > Is there a reason why we require a system port?  Was this discussed
> > previously?  Would a registered port be acceptable?
> >
> See
>
> [Syslog] Other syslog-tls Issues---Issue0
> 20 March 2006
>
> This was then incorporated in
>
> draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joe
> > _______________________________________________
> > Syslog mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog