One document matched: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-00.txt
Transport Area Working Group M. Cotton
Internet Draft ICANN
Updates: 2780, 4340 (if approved) L. Eggert
Intended status: BCP Nokia
Expires: May 2009 A. Mankin
Johns Hopkins Univ.
M. Westerlund
Ericsson
J. Touch
USC/ISI
November 3, 2008
IANA Procedures for the Transport Protocol Port Number Space
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2009.
Abstract
This document defines the IANA procedures for registering port number
values for use with the various IETF transport protocols, including
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
TCP, UDP, DCCP, and SCTP. It provides clear procedures for the
management of the port number registry, which is important for its
long-term management. It updates RFC2780 by obsoleting Sections 8
and 9.1 of that RFC, and it updates the IANA allocation procedures
for DCCP as defined in RFC4340.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
3. Port Number Types..............................................5
3.1. Assigned Port Numbers for Experimentation.................5
4. Principles for Port Number Space Management....................6
4.1. Basic Principles of Port Conservation.....................7
4.2. Principles Specific to Individual Port Number Ranges......8
4.3. New Principles............................................9
5. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number Space............10
5.1. Port Number Registration.................................10
5.2. Port Number De-Registration..............................12
5.3. Port Number Re-Use.......................................12
5.4. Port Number Revocation...................................12
5.5. Port Number Transfer.....................................13
5.6. Maintenance Issues.......................................13
6. Port Number Space Requests....................................13
6.1. Request Procedure........................................13
7. Security Considerations.......................................14
8. IANA Considerations...........................................14
9. Acknowledgments...............................................15
10. References...................................................16
10.1. Normative References....................................16
10.2. Informative References..................................16
APPENDIX A: Updates to DCCP Registries...........................19
A.1. DCCP Service Code Registry...............................19
A.1. DCCP Port Numbers Registry.....Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Introduction
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] have enjoyed a remarkable success
over the decades as the two most widely used transport protocols on
the Internet. They have introduced the concept of "ports" as logical
entities for Internet communication. Ports serve two purposes:
first, they provide a demultiplexing identifier to differentiate
transport sessions between the same pair of endpoints, and second,
they also identify the application protocol and associated service to
which processes bind [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines]. Newer
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
transport protocols, such as the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
[RFC4342] have adopted the concept of ports for their communication
sessions and use port numbers in the same way as TCP and UDP.
Port numbers are the original and most widely used means for
application and service identification on the Internet. Ports are
16-bit numbers, and the combination of source and destination port
numbers together with the IP addresses of the communicating end
systems uniquely identifies a session of a given transport protocol.
Port numbers are also known by their corresponding service names such
as "telnet" for port number 23 and "http" for port number 80.
Hosts running services, hosts accessing services on other hosts, and
intermediate devices (such as firewalls and NATs) that restrict
services need to agree on which service corresponds to a particular
destination port. Although this can be a local decision between the
endpoints of a connection, most Internet components use a single,
shared view of this association, provided by the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) through the port number registry [REGISTRY].
Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply
to IANA for a registered port number for a specific application, and
may - after successful registration - assume that no other
application will use that service port number for its communication
sessions. It is important to note that ownership of registered port
numbers remains with IANA. For many years, the allocation and
registration of new port number values for use with TCP and UDP have
had less than clear guidelines. Information about the registration
procedures for the port namespace existed in three locations: the
forms for requesting port number registrations on the IANA web site
[SYSFORM][USRFORM], an introductory text section in the file listing
the port number registrations themselves [REGISTRY], and two brief
sections of [RFC2780].
This document aggregates this scattered information into a single
reference and at the same time clarifies the guidelines for the
management of the port number space. It gives more detailed guidance
to prospective requesters of ports than the existing documentation,
and it streamlines the IANA procedures for the management of the port
number space, so that management requests can complete in a timely
manner. A key factor of this streamlining is to establish identical
registration procedures for transport protocol ports, independent of
a specific transport protocol. This document brings the IANA
procedures for TCP and UDP in line with those already in effect for
SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a single process that requesters and IANA
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
follow for all port number requests for all transport protocols,
including those not yet defined.
A second purpose of this document is to describe the principles that
guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint stewards
of the port number space. TCP and UDP have been a remarkable success
over the last decades. Thousands of applications and application-
level protocols have registered ports for their use, and there is
every reason to believe that this trend will continue into the
future. It is hence extremely important that management of the port
number space follow principles that ensure its long-term usefulness
as a shared resource. Section 4 discusses these principles in
detail. Guidelines for users seeking port numbers, as well as a
detailed history of the port number registry and alternate means for
coordinating host agreement on service-to-port-number mappings, is
provided in a companion document [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines].
In addition to detailing the IANA procedures for the initial
assignment of port numbers, this document also specifies post-
assignment procedures that until now have been handled in an ad hoc
manner. These include procedures to de-register a port number that
is no longer in use, to re-use a port number allocated for one
application that is no longer in use for another application, and
procedure by which IANA can unilaterally revoke a prior port number
registration. Section 5 discusses the specifics of these procedures.
This document also addresses two technical issues related to the
ports registry that are tangential to long-term stewardship. First,
it clarifies that a method for the early allocation of port numbers
is available for IETF working groups, in line with [RFC4020].
Second, it discusses how the use of symbolic names for assigned ports
(the "keyword" field in [REGISTRY]) for Service Resource Records (SRV
RRs) in the Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC2782] relates to the use of
SRV RRs for applications without an assigned port.
This document updates [RFC2780] by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
RFC. Note that [RFC5237] updates a different subset of the IANA
allocation guidelines originally given in [RFC2780] (specifically,
the policies on the namespace of the IP protocol number and IPv6 next
header).
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
3. Port Number Types
TCP, UDP (and UDP-Lite), SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for
their port number registries. The port registries for all these
transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers, and
Section 6 describes the IANA procedures for each range in detail:
o the Well Known Ports, i.e., the System Ports, from 0-1023
(assigned by IANA)
o the Registered Ports, i.e., the User Ports, from 1024-49151
(assigned by IANA)
o the Dynamic Ports, i.e., the Private Ports, from 49152-65535
(never assigned)
Of the assignable port ranges (Well Known and Registered, i.e., port
numbers 0-49151), individual port numbers are in one of three states
at any given time:
1. Assigned: Assigned port numbers are currently allocated to the
service indicated in the registry.
2. Unassigned: Unassigned port numbers are currently available for
assignment upon request, as per the procedures outlined in this
document.
3. Reserved: Reserved port numbers are not available for regular
assignment; they are "assigned to IANA" for special purposes.
Reserved port numbers include values at the edges of each range,
e.g., 0, 1023, 1024, etc., which may be used to extend these
ranges or the overall port number space in the future.
When this document was written, approximately 76% of the TCP and UDP
Well Known Ports were assigned, as were a significant fraction of the
Registered Ports. (As noted, Dynamic Ports are never assigned.)
3.1. Assigned Port Numbers for Experimentation
Of the Well-Known Ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and 1022)
have been assigned for experimentation with new applications and
application-layer protocols that require a port number in the
assigned ports ranges [RFC4727]. [sctp-dccp-exp]
The experimental ports 1021 and 1022 SHOULD be used for local
experiments only in controlled environments, and they SHOULD NOT be
used on the global Internet. Many new applications and application-
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
layer protocols can be experimented with without requiring a port in
the Well-Known or Registered Ports range, and port numbers in the
Dynamic Ports range can be also used.
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to limit access to these ports.
Users SHOULD take measures to ensure that experimental ports are
connecting to the intended process. For example, users of these
experimental ports might include a 64-bit nonce, once on each segment
of a message-oriented channel (e.g., UDP), or once at the beginning
of a byte-stream (e.g., TCP), which is used to confirm that the port
is being used as intended. Such confirmation of intended use is
especially important when these ports are associated with privileged
(e.g., system or administrator) processes.
4. Principles for Port Number Space Management
Management procedures for the port number space include allocation of
port numbers upon request, as well as coordination of information
about existing allocations. The latter includes maintaining contact
and description information about assigned ports, revoking abandoned
ports, and redefining port allocations when needed. Of these
procedures, port number allocation is most critical, because of the
limited number of remaining port numbers.
Before the publication of this document, the principles of port
number space allocation followed some simple, undocumented
guidelines:
o TCP and UDP ports were simultaneously allocated when either was
requested
o Port numbers were the primary allocation; service names were
informative only, and did not need to be unique
o Port numbers were conserved informally, and sometimes
inconsistently (e.g., some services were allocated ranges of many
port numbers even where not strictly necessary)
o SCTP and DCCP port number and service name spaces were managed
separately from the TCP/UDP spaces
This document attempts to update these guidelines to more
conservatively manage the limited remaining TCP and UDP port number
spaces, recognizes the potential use of service names in the absence
of corresponding port number allocations, such as in SCTP and DCCP.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
The basic principle of port number registry management is to conserve
the space where possible. Extensions to support larger port number
spaces would require changing many core protocols of the current
Internet in a way that would not be backward compatible and interfere
with both current and legacy applications.
Port numbers are intended to indicate a service and enable process
demultiplexing at an endpoint; uses beyond those basic requirements
should be avoided [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines]. This document
also focuses on service names as a unique identifier, to increase the
space available (from 4 bytes to 14), and to enable their use in the
absence of corresponding port number assignments.
4.1. Basic Principles of Port Conservation
This section summarizes the basic principles by which IANA attempts
to conserve the port number space. This description is intended to
inform applicants requesting port numbers. IANA decisions are not
required to be bound to these principles, however; other factors may
come into play, and exceptions may occur where deemed in the best
interest of the Internet.
Conservation of the port number space recognizes that because this
space is a limited resource, applications are expected to participate
in the demultiplexing process where feasible. The port numbers are
expected to encode as little information as possible that will enable
an application to perform further multiplexing by itself. In
particular, there should be:
o only one port per service
o one port for all versions of a service
o the same port for different types of devices using the same
service
A given service is expected to further demultiplex messages where
possible. For example, applications and protocols are expected to
include in-band version information, so that future versions of the
application or protocol can share the same allocated port.
Applications and protocols are also expected to be able to
efficiently use a single allocated port, either by demultiplexing
multiple streams within one port, or using the allocated port to
coordinate using dynamic ports for subsequent exchanges (e.g., in the
spirit of FTP [RFC0959]).
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
These principles of port conservation are explained in [I-D.touch-
tsvwg-port-guidelines]. That document explains in further detail how
ports are used in various ways, notably:
o Endpoint process identifier
o Application protocol identifier
o Firewall filtering
The process and protocol identifier use suggests that anything a
single process can demultiplex, or that can be encoded into a single
protocol, should be. The firewall filtering use suggests that some
uses that could be de-multiplexed or encoded must be separated to
allow for firewall management. Note that this latter use is much
less sound, because port numbers have meaning only for the two
endpoints of a connection (again, as discussed in detail in [I-
D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines]).
4.2. Principles Specific to Individual Port Number Ranges
It is important to note that different IANA procedures apply to
different ranges of the port number registry. Section 6 discusses
the details of these procedures; this section outlines the rationale
for these differences:
o Ports in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) have been
specifically set aside for local and dynamic use and cannot be
registered through IANA. Applications may simply use them for
communication without any sort of registration. On the other
hand, applications MUST NOT assume that a specific port number in
the Dynamic Ports range will always be available for communication
at all times, and a port number in that range hence MUST NOT be
used as a service identifier.
o Ports in the Registered Ports range (1024-49151) are available for
registration through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers
upon successful registration. Because registering a port number
for a specific application consumes a fraction of the shared
resource that is the port number registry, IANA will require the
requester to document the intended use of the port number, and
have a technical expert review this documentation to determine
whether to grant the registration request. This documentation
MUST explain why a port number in the Dynamic Ports range is
unsuitable for the given application.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
o Ports in the Well Known Ports range (0-1023) are also available
for registration through IANA. Because the Well Known Ports range
is both the smallest and the most densely allocated one, the bar
for new allocations is higher than that for the Registered Ports
range (1024-49551). A request for a Well Known port number MUST
document why a port number in the Registered Ports or Dynamic
Ports ranges is unsuitable.
4.3. New Principles
Several new practices stem from the conservation principle that
guides management of the port numbers registry, and will take effect
with the approval of this document:
o IANA will allocate port numbers only to the transport protocols
requested
o IANA will recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of
de-registration, revocation, and transfer
IANA will begin assigning protocol numbers only for those transport
protocols explicitly included in a registration request. This ends
the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number
to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is only
for one of these transport protocols. The new allocation procedure
conserves resources by only allocating a port number to an
application for those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or
DCCP) it actually uses. The port number will be marked as reserved -
instead of assigned - in the port number registries of the other
transport protocols. When applications start supporting the use of
some of those additional transport protocols, they must request IANA
to convert the reservation into an assignment. An application MUST
NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to it for use with
one transport protocol with another transport protocol without
another registration with IANA. The reason for this procedure is to
allow allocation of reserved port numbers on the day the range has no
more unassigend values. [port-reserv]
Conservation for the port numbers registry is improved by procedures
that allow previously allocated port numbers to become unassigned,
either through de-registration or through revocation, and by a
procedure that lets application designers transfer an allocated but
unused port number to a new application. Section 5 describes these
procedures, which so far were undocumented.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
5. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number Space
IANA supports various procedures to manage the port number space that
enable ports to be registered, de-registered, reused, and revoked.
This section explains these procedures, as well as other related
issues.
5.1. Port Number Registration
Registration refers to the allocation of port numbers to applicants.
All such registrations are made from port numbers that are Unassigned
or Reserved at the time of the allocation. Unassigned numbers are
allocated as needed, and without further explanation. Reserved
numbers are assigned only after review by IANA and the IETF, and are
accompanied by a statement explaining the reason a reserved number is
appropriate for this action.
When a registration for one or more (but not all) transport protocols
is approved, the port number for the non-requested transport
protocol(s) will remain unassigned but is marked as reserved.
However, IANA SHOULD NOT assign that port number to any other
application or service until no port numbers remain unassigned in the
request range. The current registration owner of a port number MAY
register the same port number for other transport protocols when
needed.
A port number registration consists of the following tuple:
o Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the
technical contact person for the registration. This is REQUIRED.
Additional address information MAY be provided. For registrations
done through IETF-published RFCs, one or more technical contact
persons SHALL be provided.
o Registration Owner: Name and email address of the owner of the
registration. This is REQUIRED. For individuals, this is the same
as the registration technical contact; for organizations, this is
a point of contact at that organization. For registrations done
through IETF-published RFCs, the registration ownership will
belong to the IETF and not the technical contact persons.
o Transport Protocol: The transport protocol(s) for which the port
allocation is requested, currently limited to one or more of TCP,
UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
o Port Number: The currently unassigned port number(s) the
requester suggests for allocation. If specified and when
possible, IANA is encouraged to allocate the suggested number. If
not specified, IANA will choose a suitable number from the
Registered Ports range. Note that the applicant MUST NOT use the
suggested ports prior to the completion of registration.
o Broadcast, Multicast or Anycast: Indicates whether the protocol
supports either broadcast, multicast, or anycast network layer
addresses.
o Port Name: The long name (description) of the port. It should
avoid all but the most well known acronyms.
o Service Name: This short name for the port number, used in
various service selection and discovery mechanisms, currently
including TCPMUX [RFC1078] and DNS SRV resource records [RFC2782].
This name is limited to 14 bytes, case-insensitive US-ASCII
letters, digits, and dashes. It MUST NOT conflict with already
allocated names in the service name registry [serv-nam-reg].
o Reference: A reference document describing the protocol or
application using this port. For registration requests for
Registered Ports, this documentation MUST explain why a port
number in the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given
application. For registration requests for Well Known Ports, this
documentation MUST explain why a port number in the Registered
Ports or Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable.
The following rules apply to the port number registry database
maintained by IANA: [database-rules]
o Service Names MUST be unique.
o Service Name MUST exist for all transport protocols.
o Port Number MUST exist for TCP and UDP; it MAY exist for SCTP and
DCCP.
o Transport Protocol MUST exist for all entries.
o Service Code MUST NOT occur for TCP, UDP or SCTP, and MUST occur
for DCCP.
o Port Name MUST exist for all entries.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
o Currently valid Registration Contact SHOULD exist for all entries;
it MUST exist for all new entries.
o Reference SHOULD exist for all entries.
5.2. Port Number De-Registration
The original requesters of a granted port number assignment can
return the port number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a
need for it. The port number will be de-registered and will be
marked as reserved [res-vs-unass]. IANA should not re-assign port
numbers that have been de-registered until all other available port
numbers in the specific range have been assigned.
Before proceeding with a de-registration, IANA needs to reasonably
establish that the port number is no longer in use.
5.3. Port Number Re-Use
If the original requesters of a granted port number assignment no
longer have a need for the registered number, but would like to re-
use it for a different application, they can submit a request to IANA
to do so.
Logically, port number re-use is to be thought of as a de-
registration followed by an immediate re-registration of the same
port number for a new application. Consequently, the information
that needs to be provided about the proposed new use of the port
number is identical to what would need to be provided for a new port
number allocation for the specific ports range.
IANA needs to carefully review such requests before approving them.
In some instances, the Expert Reviewer will determine that the
application that the port number was assigned to has found usage
beyond the original requester, or that there is a concern that it may
have such users. This determination MUST be made quickly. A
community call concerning revocation of a port number (see below) MAY
be considered, if a broader use of the port number is suspected.
5.4. Port Number Revocation
Sometimes, it will be clear that a specific port number is no longer
in use and that IANA can de-register it and mark it as reserved [res-
vs-unass2]. At other times, it may be unclear whether a given
assigned port number is still in use somewhere in the Internet. In
those cases, despite the requester's wish to de-register, IANA must
consider the consequences that de-registering the port number.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL
formulate a request to the IESG to issue a four-week community call
concerning the pending port number revocation. The IESG and IANA,
with the Expert Reviewer's support, SHALL determine promptly after
the end of the community call whether revocation should proceed and
then communicate their decision to the community. This procedure
typically involves similar steps to de-registration except that it is
initiated by IANA.
5.5. Port Number Transfer
The value of port numbers is defined by their careful management as a
shared Internet resource, whereas enabling transfer allows the
potential for associated monetary exchanges to motivate this
management. As a result, current IANA procedures do not permit port
number assignments to be transferred between parties, even when they
are mutually consenting. The appropriate alternate procedure is for
the new party to request its own port number registration and for the
previous party to release its registration via the de-registration
procedure outlined above.
5.6. Maintenance Issues
The previous procedures help IANA manage defining properties of the
port name space. There are additional procedures which are
administrative, and help IANA maintain non-defining information in a
registration. This includes changes to the Port Name (i.e.,
description), and changes to contact information. These changes are
coordinated by IANA in an informal manner, and may be initiated by
either the registrant or by IANA, e.g., the latter when requesting an
update to current contact information.
6. Port Number Space Requests
This section describes the process for requests associated with
IANA's management of the the port number space. Such requests
include initial registration, de-registration, re-use, changes to the
service name, as well as updates to the contact information or port
name (description). Revocation is initiated by IANA.
6.1. Request Procedure
All registration requests for a TCP, SCTP, DCCP and/or UDP ports must
contain the following pieces of information:
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
o Port number tuple: A port number tuple, as described in Section
5.1. The port number would typically be omitted; when provided, it
indicates a preference for requesting a currently unassigned
value.
o Port Range: Indicates the port range desired (i.e., Well Known
Ports or Registered Ports).
o Requested Action: One of REGISTER, DEREGISTER, REUSE,
SVC_NAME_CHANGE, or UPDATE_INFO (port name, registration contact).
The Well Known Ports are assigned by IANA and cover the range 0-1023.
On many systems, they can only be used by system (or root) processes
or by programs executed by privileged users. Registration requests
for a Well Known port number MUST follow the "IETF Review" policy of
[RFC5226]. Registrations for a port number in this range MUST
document why a port number in the Registered Ports range will not
fulfill the application needs.
The Registered Ports are assigned by IANA and on most systems can be
used by ordinary user processes or programs executed by ordinary
users. The Registered Ports are in the range 1024-49151.
Registration requests for a Registered Port number MUST follow the
"Expert Review" policy of [RFC5226].
7. Security Considerations
The IANA guidelines described in this document do not change the
security properties of either TCP, SCTP, DCCP or UDP.
Assignment of a port number does not in any way imply an endorsement
of an application or product, and the fact that network traffic is
flowing to or from a registered port number does not mean that it is
"good" traffic, or even that it is used by the assigned service.
Firewall and system administrators should choose how to configure
their systems based on their knowledge of the traffic in question,
not whether there is a port number registered or not.
8. IANA Considerations
This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of [RFC2780]. Upon
approval of this document, IANA is requested to adopt the procedures
described herein.
IANA should take immediate actions to resolve inconsistencies raised
by requirements of this document.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
9. Acknowledgments
The text in Appendix A is based on a suggestion by Tom Phelan.
Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
Program.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP
37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
[RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February
2005.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
2008.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines] Touch, J., "Guidelines for
Transport Port Use", Work in Progress, Nov. 2008.
[REGISTRY] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Port
Numbers", http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD
9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", RFC
1078, November 1988.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 3:
TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, March 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007.
[RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for
the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008.
[SYSFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
for System (Well Known) Port Number",
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl.
[TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project",http://www.trilogy-project.org/.
[USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
for User (Registered) Port Number",
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl.
Editorial Comments
[database-rules] Lars: Some of these rules below allow entries that
aren't in full alignment with the procedures in this document. I
assume that is, because the rules attempt to describe the state of
the IANA database including all existing entries? If so, we should
make that clearer.
[port-reserv] Magnus: The usage of for the above reason reserved port
numbers should probably not have the same rules as the other reserved
ports. Needs discussion if we should separate this properly. I think
the IETF consultation part will make it difficult the day one
registry runs out of unassigned ones.
[res-vs-unass] Lars: This used to say "unassigned" instead of
"reserved". I suggest "reserved", so that IANA has an indication in
their list that they need to be careful when re-assigning a
previously de-registered port.
[res-vs-unass2] Lars: See [res-vs-unass].
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
[sctp-dccp-exp] Lars: This document should register ports 1021 and
1022 for DCCP and SCTP. Joe: and potentially for all new protocols,
as suggested by Alfred?
[serv-nam-reg] Lars: Add citation to the service name registry
draft, when it exists
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
APPENDIX A: Updates to DCCP Registries
This document updates the IANA allocation procedures for the DCCP
Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries as defined in
[RFC4340].
A.1. DCCP Service Code Registry
Service Codes are allocated first-come-first-served according to
Section 19.8 of [RFC4340]. This document updates Section 19.8 of
[RFC4340] by extending the guidelines given there in the following
ways:
o IANA MAY assign new Service Codes without seeking Expert Review
using their discretion, but SHOULD seek expert review when a
request seeks an appreciable number of Service Codes (e.g., more
than five).
o IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer with
questions on any registry, regardless of the registry policy, for
clarification or if there is a problem with a request [RFC4340].
A.2. DCCP Port Numbers Registry
The DCCP ports registry is defined by [RFC4340] in Section 19.9.
Allocations in this registry require prior allocation of a Service
Code. Not all Service Codes require IANA-registered ports. This
document updates Section 19.9 of [RFC4340] by extending the
guidelines given there in the following way:
o IANA should normally assign a value in the range 1024-49151 to a
DCCP server port. IANA allocation requests to allocate port
numbers in the Well Known Ports range (0 through 1023), require
IETF action prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340]. Such action
typically requires confirmation that the protocol indicated is in
the standards track of the IETF.
Section 19.9 of [RFC4340] requires each DCCP server port assignment
to be associated with at least one Service Code value. This document
updates [RFC4340] in the following way:
o IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than
one DCCP server port.
o The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server port
should be recorded in the ports registry.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
o A request for additional Service Codes to be associated with an
already allocated Port Number requires Expert Review. These
requests will normally be accepted when they originate from the
contact associated with the port registration. In other cases,
these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port,
when this is available.
RFC4340] notes that a short port name MUST be associated with each
DCCP server port that has been registered. This document requires
that this name MUST be unique.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
Authors' Addresses
Michelle Cotton
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
USA
Phone: +1 310 823 9358
Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org
URI: http://www.iana.org/
Lars Eggert
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
Nokia Group 00045
Finland
Phone: +358 50 48 24461
Email: lars.eggert@nokia.com
URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/
Allison Mankin
Johns Hopkins Univ.
USA
Phone: +1 301 728 7199
Email: mankin@psg.com
URI: http://www.psg.com/~mankin/
Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson
Torshamsgatan 23
Stockholm 164 80
Sweden
Phone: +46 8 719 0000
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Joe Touch
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IANA Port Number Space Procedures November 2008
USA
Phone: +1 310 448 9151
Email: touch@isi.edu
URI: http://www.isi.edu/touch
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Cotton, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 22]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 16:14:21 |