One document matched: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc comments="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<!--<?rfc editing="yes"?>-->
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="2"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<rfc category="bcp" docName="draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03"
ipr="pre5378Trust200902" updates="2780, 2782, 4340">
<front>
<title abbrev="Port Number and Service Name Procedures">Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Transport
Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry</title>
<!-- AUTHORS ALPHABETICAL -->
<author fullname="Michelle Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton">
<organization abbrev="ICANN">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330</street>
<code>90292</code>
<city>Marina del Rey</city>
<region>CA</region>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 310 823 9358</phone>
<email>michelle.cotton@icann.org</email>
<uri>http://www.iana.org/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Lars Eggert" initials="L." surname="Eggert">
<organization abbrev="Nokia">Nokia Research Center</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>P.O. Box 407</street>
<code>00045</code>
<city>Nokia Group</city>
<country>Finland</country>
</postal>
<phone>+358 50 48 24461</phone>
<email>lars.eggert@nokia.com</email>
<uri>http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Allison Mankin" initials="A." surname="Mankin">
<organization abbrev="Johns Hopkins Univ.">Johns Hopkins
University</organization>
<address>
<!--
<postal>
<street>4102 Wilson Boulevard</street>
<city>Arlington</city>
<region>VA</region>
<code>22230</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
-->
<phone>+1 301 728 7199</phone>
<email>mankin@psg.com</email>
<uri>http://www.psg.com/~mankin/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Joe Touch" initials="J." surname="Touch">
<organization>USC/ISI</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>4676 Admiralty Way</street>
<code>90292</code>
<city>Marina del Rey</city>
<region>CA</region>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 310 448 9151</phone>
<email>touch@isi.edu</email>
<uri>http://www.isi.edu/touch</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Magnus Westerlund" initials="M." surname="Westerlund">
<organization>Ericsson</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Torshamsgatan 23</street>
<city>Stockholm</city>
<code>164 80</code>
<country>Sweden</country>
</postal>
<phone>+46 8 719 0000</phone>
<email>magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
<area>Transport Area</area>
<workgroup>Transport Area Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>IANA</keyword>
<keyword>transport</keyword>
<keyword>ports</keyword>
<keyword>port numbers</keyword>
<keyword>allocation</keyword>
<keyword>procedures</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other
requests related to the transport protocol port number and service name
registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind these
procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability of the
registry.</t>
<t>This document updates RFC2780 by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
that RFC, it updates the IANA allocation procedures for DCCP as
defined in RFC4340, and it updates RFC2782 to clarify what a service name
is and how it is registered.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>
For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number
values and service names for use with the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) <xref
target="RFC0793"></xref> and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) <xref
target="RFC0768"></xref> have had less than
clear guidelines. New transport protocols have been added - the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) <xref target="RFC4960"></xref> and the Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) <xref target="RFC4342"></xref> - and new mechanisms have been developed (DNS SRV records <xref target="RFC2782"></xref>), each
with separate registries and separate guidelines. The community
recognized the need for additional procedures beyond just assignment;
notably modification, revocation, and release.
</t>
<t>
A key factor of this procedural streamlining is to establish
identical registration procedures for all IETF transport protocols.
This document brings the IANA procedures for TCP and UDP in line with
those already for SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a single
process that requesters and IANA follow for all requests for all
transport protocols, including those not yet defined.
</t>
<t>
In addition to detailing the IANA procedures for the initial
assignment of port numbers and service names, 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. <xref target="iana-procedures"></xref> discusses the specifics of these
procedures and processes that requesters and IANA follow for all requests for all current and future
transport protocols.
</t>
<t>
It is
important to note that ownership of registered port numbers and service
names remains with IANA. For protocols developed by IETF working groups, IANA now also offers a method
for the "early" assignment of port numbers and service names <xref
target="RFC4020"></xref>, as described in <xref
target="registration"></xref>.</t>
<t>
This document updates IANA's allocation guidelines <xref
target="RFC2780"></xref> for UDP
and TCP port numbers by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of <xref
target="RFC2780"></xref>.
(Note that different sections of <xref target="RFC2780"></xref> were updated in February 2008 by <xref target="RFC5237"></xref>.)
This document also updates the IANA allocation procedures for DCCP as
defined in <xref target="RFC4340"/>. It updates <xref target="RFC2782"/> to clarify what a service name is and how it is registered, because <xref target="RFC2782"/> simply refers to <xref target="RFC1700"/> when defining service names, which in turn contains now-obsolete copies <xref target="RFC3232"/> of various IANA registries <xref target="PORTREG"/><xref target="PROTSERVREG"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="motivation" title="Motivation">
<t>Information about the registration procedures for the
port registry has existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port
number registrations on the IANA web site <xref target="SYSFORM"></xref> <xref target="USRFORM"></xref>, an introductory text section in the file
listing the port number registrations themselves <xref
target="PORTREG"></xref>, and two brief sections of the IANA Allocation
Guidelines <xref target="RFC2780"></xref>.</t>
<t>Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been
historically unclear. Service names were originally created as mnemonic
identifiers for port numbers without a well-defined syntax, beyond the
14-character limit mentioned on the IANA website <xref
target="SYSFORM"></xref> <xref target="USRFORM"></xref>. Even that
length limit has not been consistently applied, and some assigned
service names are 15 characters long. When service identification via
DNS SRV RRs were introduced, the ambiguities in the syntactic definition
of the service namespace, together with a requirement by IANA to only
assign service names and port numbers in combination, led to the
creation of an ad hoc service name registry outside of the control of
IANA <xref target="SRVREG"></xref>.</t>
<t>It has also been historically unclear if the "name" entries registered in the "Protocol and Service Names Registry" <xref target="PROTSERVREG"></xref> can be used as service names. <xref target="RFC0952"></xref> defines the
names in that registry as either service names or protocol names. It is
likely that these names has been interpreted as being valid service
names and consequently have been used, e.g., in SRV records. This motivates why this document merges the 166 protocol and service names defined in that registry into the port number registry <xref
target="PORTREG"></xref>.</t>
<t>This document aggregates all this scattered information into a single
reference that aligns and clearly defines the management procedures for
both port numbers and service names. It gives more detailed guidance to
prospective requesters of ports and service names than the existing
documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures for the management
of the registry, so that management requests can complete in a timely
manner.</t>
<t>This document defines rules for registration of service names without associated port numbers,
for such usages as DNS SRV records, which was not possible under the previous IANA procedures. These new procedures
also merge service name registrations from the non-IANA "ad
hoc" registry <xref target="SRVREG"></xref> and from the the IANA "Protocol and Service Names" registry <xref target="PROTSERVREG"></xref>
into the IANA "Port and Service Name" registry <xref
target="PORTREG"></xref>, which from here on is the single authoritative registry for service names and port numbers.</t>
<t>An additional 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 registry. TCP and UDP have been a remarkable success
over the last decades. Thousands of applications and application-level
protocols have registered ports and service names 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 registry
follow principles that ensure its long-term usefulness as a shared
resource. <xref target="principles"></xref> discusses these principles
in detail.<!-- Commented this out until we know what Joe's doc will actually say.
Guidelines for users seeking port numbers and/or service names, 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 <xref
target="I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines">companion document</xref>.
--></t>
</section>
<section title="Background">
<t>The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) <xref
target="RFC0793"></xref> and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) <xref
target="RFC0768"></xref> have enjoyed a remarkable success over the
decades as the two most widely used transport protocols on the Internet.
They have relied on 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 may also identify the
application protocol and associated service to which processes bind.
Newer transport protocols, such as the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) <xref target="RFC4960"></xref> and the Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) <xref target="RFC4342"></xref> have
adopted the concept of ports for their communication sessions and use
16-bit port numbers in the same way as TCP and UDP (and UDP-Lite <xref
target="RFC3828"></xref>, a variant of UDP).</t>
<t>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 both "http" and "www" for port number 80.</t>
<t>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 is ultimately a local decision with meaning only 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 <xref target="PORTREG"></xref>.</t>
<t>Over time, the assumption that a particular
port number necessarily implies a particular service may become less
true. For example, multiple instances of the same service can run on different ports on the same host, or NATs that support port mapping or registration <xref target="I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp"></xref><xref
target="UPnP"></xref> need to offer service instances using the same port on several internal hosts available to the public Internet on different ports. This document assumes, however, that ports are most often used in a conventional manner - where endpoints and intermediate devices all share
the common view of the IANA port number registry.
</t>
<!--
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>When different background applications on a single computer each
export a web-based user interface, (e.g. as done by the Common Unix
Printing System <xref target="CUPS"></xref>) they cannot all get TCP
port 80, especially if that computer is also hosting a conventional
web site on TCP port 80. Consequently, a single host may have
several different processes all answering HTTP requests of various
kinds, on ports other than port 80.</t>
<t>When different users are running multiple copies of the same
application on a single computer, multiple instances of the
application cannot listen on the same port at the same time.
Consequently, applications of this kind need to be programmed to
expect that they may not always be able to get the port they want,
and may have to listen on an alternative port instead.</t>
<t>When different computers in a home are using a NAT gateway to
share a single IP address, the computers can request that the NAT
gateway create port mappings to enable them to receive inbound
connections <xref target="I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp"></xref><xref
target="UPnP"></xref>, but they can't all get the same external port
at the same time. Consequently, some applications on some of those
computers may be receiving inbound connections on port other than
the port usually used for the service in question. As ISPs begin to
deploy large-scale NAT, sharing a single IP address between multiple
homes, it is likely to become even more common to have applications
receiving connections on dynamically allocated ports.</t>
</list></t>
-->
<t>Applications either use numeric port numbers directly, look up port
numbers based on service names via system calls such as getservbyname()
on UNIX, look up port numbers by performing queries for DNS SRV records
<xref target="RFC2782"></xref><xref
target="I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd"></xref> or determine port numbers in a
variety of other ways <xref target="RFC1078"></xref>.</t>
<t>Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply
to IANA for an assigned port number and service name for a specific
application, and may - after successful registration - assume that no
other application will use that port number and service name for its
communication sessions. Alternatively, application designers may also
only ask for an assigned service name, if their application does not
require a fixed port number. The latter alternative is encouraged when
possible, in order to conserve the more limited port number space.
This includes, for example, applications that use DNS SRV records to look up port numbers at runtime, or transports that use service names
not coupled to port numbers, e.g., TCP portnames <xref
target="I-D.touch-tcp-portnames"></xref>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="term" title="Conventions Used in this Document">
<t>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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 <xref
target="RFC2119"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Service Names">
<t>Service names are the unique key in the Port and Service Name
registry. This unique symbolic name for a service may also be used for other
purposes, such as <xref target="RFC2782">DNS SRV records</xref>. Within the registry, this unique key ensures that different
services can be unambiguously distinguished, thus preventing name collisions and avoiding confusion about who is the registration owner of a particular entry. </t>
<t>For each service name, there may exist zero or more associated port number assignments. A port number assignment associated with a service name contains the transport protocol, port number and possibly additional data, such as a DCCP service code. There
may be more than one service name associated with a particular transport
protocol and port. This SHOULD only occur when all such service names
are aliases for the same service, such as with "www" and "http".
</t>
<!--I added the above regarding multiple serivce names to one transport protocol and port number
due to existing registry entries. If we don't want this we need to deal with the legacy.-->
<t>
Service names are assigned on a "first come, first served"
basis, as described in <xref target="registration"/>.
Names should be brief and informative, avoiding words or
abbreviations that are redundant in the context of the registry (e.g., "port", "service", "protocol", etc.) Names referring to discovery services, e.g., using
multicast or broadcast to identify endpoints capable of a given service,
SHOULD use an easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc").
</t>
<section title="Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records">
<t><xref
target="RFC2782"></xref> defines SRV records for the DNS system. One part of the
DNS name of an SRV record includes what is called "SERVICE", i.e., a
symbolic name for the service. This document updates <xref
target="RFC2782"></xref> in order to
clarify that the symbolic name ("SERVICE") SHALL only be a service name as
defined in this document that has been registered with IANA and recorded in the port number and service name registry <xref target="PORTREG"></xref>. This to ensure that only a single registry
exist and name collisions can be more easily avoided in the future. </t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="types" title="Port Number Ranges">
<t>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
<xref target="variances"></xref> describes the IANA procedures for each
range in detail: <list style="symbols">
<t>the Well Known Ports, also known as the System Ports, from 0-1023
(assigned by IANA)</t>
<t>the Registered Ports, also known as the User Ports, from
1024-49151 (assigned by IANA)</t>
<t>the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private Ports, from
49152-65535 (never assigned)</t>
</list></t>
<t>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:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Assigned: Assigned port numbers are currently allocated to the
service indicated in the registry.</t>
<t>Unassigned: Unassigned port numbers are currently available for
assignment upon request, as per the procedures outlined in this
document.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</list></t>
<t>In order to keep the size of the registry manageable, IANA typically
only records the Assigned and Reserved port numbers and service names in
the registry. Unassigned values are typically not explicitly listed.</t>
<t>As a data point, when this document was written, approximately 76% of
the TCP and UDP Well Known Ports were assigned, and approximately 9% of the Registered Ports were assigned. (As noted, Dynamic Ports are never
assigned.)</t>
<section anchor="udptcpexp"
title="Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation">
<t>Of the Well Known ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and
1022), together with their respective service names ("exp1" and
"exp2"), have been assigned for experimentation with new applications
and application-layer protocols that require a port number in the
assigned ports ranges <xref target="RFC4727"></xref>. </t>
<t>Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental and
Testing Numbers Considered Useful" <xref target="RFC3692"></xref> for
how these experimental port numbers are to be used.
<!-- I still think this could be useful to explicitly repeat - Lars
Specifically, they
SHOULD only be used for local experiments in controlled environments,
and they SHOULD NOT be used on the global Internet. Many new
applications and application-layer protocols can be experimented with
without requiring a port in the Well Known or Registered ports range,
by using port numbers in the Dynamic Ports range.</t>
-->
</t>
<t>
This document
registers the same two port numbers and service names for
experimentation with new application-layer protocols over SCTP and
DCCP in <xref target="sctpdccpexp"></xref>.
</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="principles"
title="Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry Management">
<t>Management procedures for the port number and service name registry
include allocation of port numbers and service names upon request, as
well as coordination of information about existing allocations. The
latter includes maintaining contact and description information about
assignments, revoking abandoned assignments, and redefining assignments
when needed.
Of these procedures, port number allocation
is most critical, in order to continue to conserve the remaining port
numbers.
</t>
<t>
As noted earlier, only ~9% of the Registered Port space is
currently assigned. The current rate of assignment is approximately 400 ports/year,
and has remained linear for the past 8 years. At that rate, if
similar conservation continues, this resource will sustain another 85
years of assignment - without the need to resort to reassignment of released values or revocation.
Note that the namespace available for service names is even larger,
which allows for a simpler management procedures.
</t>
<section title="Past Principles">
<t>Before the publication of this document, the principles of port
number and service name management followed a few mostly
undocumented guidelines. They are recorded here for historical
purposes, and this document updates them in <xref target="upprinc"/>. These principles were:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>TCP and UDP ports were simultaneously allocated when either was
requested</t>
<t>Port numbers were the primary allocation; service names were
informative only, and did not have a well-defined syntax</t>
<t>Port numbers were conserved informally, and sometimes
inconsistently (e.g., some services were allocated ranges of many
port numbers even where not strictly necessary)</t>
<t>SCTP and DCCP port number and service name registries were
managed separately from the TCP/UDP registries</t>
<t>Service names could not be assigned in the ports registry without
assigning a corresponding port number at the same time</t>
</list>This document attempts to document, clarify and align these
guidelines in order to more conservatively manage the limited remaining
port number space and to enable and promote the use of service names for
service identification without associated port numbers, where
possible.</t>
<!-- <t>Port numbers are intended to identify a service and
enable process demultiplexing at an endpoint; uses beyond
those basic requirements should be avoided
<xref target="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.
<cref source="Lars" anchor="incr-space">I don't understand
where the "extend from 4 bytes to 14" bit comes
from.</cref></t>-->
</section>
<section title="Updated Principles" anchor="upprinc">
<t>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.</t>
<t>The basic principle of port number registry management is to
conserve use of the port 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.</t>
<t>Conservation of the port number space recognizes that because this
space is a limited resource, applications are expected to participate
in the traffic demultiplexing process where feasible. The port numbers
are expected to encode as little information as possible that will
still enable an application to perform further demultiplexing by
itself. In particular:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>IANA will allocate only one assigned port number per service or application</t>
<t>IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all versions of a service
(e.g., running the service with or without a security
mechanism, or for updated variants of a service)</t>
<t>IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all different types of
devices using or participating in the same service</t>
<t> IANA will allocate port numbers only for the transport protocols
explicitly named in an registration request</t>
<t> IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of
de-registration, revocation, and transfer</t>
<t>IANA may begin assigning service names that do not request a
corresponding port number allocation under a simple "First Come,
First Served" policy <xref target="RFC5226"></xref> (assignments
involving port numbers still require "Expert Review")</t>
</list>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 for multiple sessions, 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 <xref
target="RFC0959"></xref>).</t>
<t><!-- Removed until doc is available: These principles of port conservation are explained in <xref
target="I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines" />. That document
explains in further detail how -->Ports are used in various ways,
notably:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>as endpoint process identifiers</t>
<t>as application protocol identifiers</t>
<t>for firewall filtering purposes</t>
</list>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
involved in a connection, and drawing conclusions about the service
that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is
inherently problematic.<!-- (again, as discussed in detail in <xref
target="I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines" />).-->
Further, previous separation of protocol variants
based on security capabilities (e.g., HTTP on port 80 vs. HTTPS on port 443) is not recommended for new protocols, because all should be security-capable and capable of negotiating the use of security in-band.
</t>
<t>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, their implementors 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 asking IANA
to convert the reservation into an assignment.</t>
<t>Conservation of port numbers 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. <xref target="iana-procedures"></xref> describes
these procedures, which so far were undocumented. Port number
conservation is also improved by recommending that applications that
do not require an allocated port, e.g., because they can use
service-name-based lookups, chose this option and only register a
service name.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="variances"
title="Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges">
<t><xref target="types"></xref> describes the different port number
ranges. It is important to note that IANA applies slightly different
procedures when managing the different ranges of the port number
registry: <list style="symbols">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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. This documentation will be input to the "Expert Review"
allocation procedure <xref target="RFC5226"></xref>, by which IANA
will have a technical expert review the request to determine
whether to grant the registration. The submitted documentation
MUST explain why using a port number in the Dynamic Ports range is
unsuitable for the given application.</t>
<t>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, the requirements
for new allocations are more strict than those for the Registered Ports
range, and will only be granted under the "IETF Review" allocation
procedure <xref target="RFC5226"></xref>. A request for a Well
Known port number MUST document why using a port number from both
the Registered Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable for
the given application.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="iana-procedures"
title="IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service Name Registry">
<t>This section describes the process for requests associated with
IANA's management of the port number and service name registry. Such
requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use, changes
to the service name, as well as updates to the contact information or
description associated with an assignment. Revocation is initiated by
IANA.</t>
<section anchor="registration"
title="Port Number and Service Name Registration">
<t>Registration refers to the allocation of port numbers or service
names to applicants. All such registrations are made from port numbers
or service names that are Unassigned or Reserved at the time of the
allocation. Unassigned numbers and names are allocated as needed, and
without further explanation. Reserved numbers and names are assigned
only after review by IANA and the IETF, and are accompanied by a
statement explaining the reason a Reserved number or name is
appropriate for this action.</t>
<t>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 be marked as Reserved. IANA SHOULD NOT assign that
port number to any other application or service until no other port
numbers remain Unassigned in the requested range. The current
registration owner of a port number MAY register these Reserved port
numbers for other transport protocols when needed.</t>
<t>Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific
transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name
(but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all
transport protocols.</t>
<t>A port number or service name registration consists of the
following information:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Registration Owner: Name and email address of the owner of the
registration. This is REQUIRED. For registrations done through
IETF-published RFCs, the registration ownership will belong to the
IETF and not the technical contact persons.</t>
<t>Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the
technical contact person for the registration. This is REQUIRED.
For individuals, this is the same as the Registration Owner; for
organizations, this is a point of contact at that organization.
Additional address information MAY be provided. For registrations
done through IETF-published RFCs, one or more technical contact
persons SHALL be provided.</t>
<t>Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service
associated with the registration request MUST be provided, for use
in various service selection and discovery mechanisms (including,
but not limited to, DNS SRV records <xref
target="RFC2782"></xref>). Valid service names MUST only contain
these US-ASCII <xref target="ANSI.X3-4.1986"></xref> characters:
letters from A to Z, digits from 0 to 9, and hyphens ("-", ASCII
0x2D or decimal 45). They MUST be at least one character and no
more than fifteen characters long, MUST NOT begin or end with a
hyphen, and MUST NOT consist of only digits (in order to be
distinguishable from port numbers, which are typically written as
all digits). In order to be unique, they MUST NOT be identical to
any currently registered service names in the IANA registry <xref
target="PORTREG"></xref>. Service names are case-insensitive;
they may be provided and entered into the registry with mixed case
(e.g., for clarity), but for the purposes of comparison, the case
is ignored.</t>
<t>Port Number: If assignment of port number(s) is desired, either
the currently Unassigned port number(s) the requester suggests for
allocation or the tag "ANY" MUST be provided. If only a service
name is to be assigned, this field MUST be empty. If specific port
numbers are requested, IANA is encouraged to allocate the
suggested numbers. If the tag "ANY" is 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 the registration.</t>
<t>Transport Protocol: The transport protocol(s) for which the
allocation is requested MUST be provided. This field is currently
limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.</t>
<t>Service Code: A desired unique service code for the service
associated with the registration request. Service codes are
specific to the DCCP protocol <xref
target="I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes"></xref>; the request MUST
include a desired service code when the registration requests
includes DCCP as a transport protocol, and MUST NOT include one
otherwise.</t>
<t>Description: A short description of the service associated with
the registration request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the
most well known acronyms.</t>
<t>Reference: A reference document describing the protocol or
application using this port, including whether the protocol
supports either broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication.
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. <vspace blankLines="1" /> "Early" registration
requests can be made by IETF working groups without including such
a reference document, although it is RECOMMENDED that at least a
reference to an Internet Draft describing the work in progress is
provided.</t>
</list></t>
<t>When IANA receives a registration request containing the above
information, they SHALL initiate an "Expert Review" <xref
target="RFC5226"></xref> in order to determine whether an assignment
should be made. For requests for service names that do not include
port number assignments, IANA MAY, at its discretion, skip the "Expert
Review" procedure and assign the service name under a simple "First
Come First Served" policy <xref target="RFC5226"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="deregistration"
title="Port Number and Service Name De-Registration">
<t>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. 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.</t>
<t>Before proceeding with a port number de-registration, IANA needs to
reasonably establish that the value is actually no longer in use.</t>
<t>Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that a
given service name remain assigned even after all associated port
number assignments have become de-registered. Under this policy, it will
appear in the registry as if it had been created through a service
name registration request that did not include any port numbers.</t>
<t>On rare occasions, it may still be useful to de-register a service
name. In such cases, IANA will mark the service name as Reserved. IANA
will involve their IESG-appointed expert in such cases.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="reuse" title="Port Number and Service Name Re-Use">
<t>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.</t>
<t>Logically, port number re-use is to be thought of as a
de-registration (<xref target="deregistration"></xref>) followed by an
immediate re-registration (<xref target="registration"></xref>) 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.</t>
<t>Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that the
original service name associated with the prior use of the port number
remains assigned, and a new service be created and associated with the
port number. This is again consistent with viewing a re-use request as
a de-registration followed by an immediate re-registration. Re-using
an assigned service name for a different application is NOT
RECOMMENDED.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="revocation"
title="Port Number and Service Name Revocation">
<t>A port number revocation can be thought of as an IANA-initiated
de-registration (<xref target="deregistration"></xref>), and has
exactly the same effect on the registry.</t>
<t>Sometimes, it will be clear that a specific port number is no
longer in use and that IANA can revoke it and mark it as Reserved. At
other times, it may be unclear whether a given assigned port number is
still in use somewhere in the Internet. In those cases, IANA must
carefully consider the consequences of revoking the port number, and
SHOULD only do so if there is an overwhelming need.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
space compared to the port number space, revoking service names is NOT
RECOMMENDED.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="transfer"
title="Port Number and Service Name Transfers">
<t>The value of port numbers and service names is defined by their
careful management as a shared Internet resource, whereas enabling
transfer allows the potential for associated monetary exchanges. As a
result, the IETF does not permit port number or service name
assignments to be transferred between parties, even when they are
mutually consenting.</t>
<t>The appropriate alternate procedure is a coordinated
de-registration and registration: The new party requests the port
number or service name via a registration and the previous party
releases its assignment via the de-registration procedure outlined
above.</t>
<t>With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL
carefully determine if there is a valid technical, operational or
managerial reason before performing the transfer.</t>
</section>
<section title="Maintenance Issues">
<t>The previous procedures help IANA manage the defining properties of
the port name and service name registry. There are additional
procedures which are administrative and help IANA maintain
non-defining information in a registration. This includes changes to
the Port Description and changes to Technical Contact information.
(Note that Registration Owner cannot be changed; see <xref
target="transfer"></xref> above.) 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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="seccons" title="Security Considerations">
<t>The IANA guidelines described in this document do not change the
security properties of UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP.</t>
<t><!-- adapted from http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers -->Assignment
of a port number or service name 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 or service name registered
or not.</t>
<t>
Services are expected to include support for security, either
as default or dynamically negotiated in-band.
The use of separate port number or service name assignments for secure and insecure variants of the same service is to be avoided in order to discourage the deployment of insecure services.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="ianacons" title="IANA Considerations">
<!-- put all changes from 2780 into this section
-->
<t>This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of the March 2000 IANA
Allocation Guidelines <xref target="RFC2780"></xref>.</t>
<t>Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to contact the
maintainer of the <xref target="SRVREG"></xref> registry, in order to
merge the contents of that private registry into the official IANA
registry. It is expected that the contents of <xref
target="SRVREG"></xref> will at that time be replaced with pointers to
the IANA registry and to this RFC.</t>
<t>Similarly, IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in the port number registry <xref target="PORTREG"></xref> for any entry in the "Protocol and Service Names" registry <xref target="PROTSERVREG"></xref> that does not already have one assigned. After that, IANA should investigate if the "Protocol and Service Names" registry <xref target="PROTSERVREG"></xref> can be retired.</t>
<section anchor="consistency" title="Service Name Consistency">
<t><xref target="registration"></xref> defines which character strings
are well-formed service names, which until now had not been clearly
defined. The definition in <xref target="registration"></xref> was
chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service names with current
and future service discovery mechanisms.</t>
<t>As of August 5, 2009 approximately 98% of the so-called "Short
Names" from existing port number registrations <xref
target="PORTREG"></xref> meet the rules for legal service names
stated in <xref target="registration"></xref>, and hence will be used
unmodified.</t>
<t>The remaining approximately 2% of the exiting "Short Names" are not
suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because they
contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, plusses, slashes,
or underscores. All existing "Short Names" conform to the length
requirement of 15 characters or less. For these unsuitable "Short
Names", listed in the table below, the service name will be the Short
Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens. IANA SHALL add
an alias to the registry that assigns a well-formed service name for
the existing service but otherwise duplicates the original assignment
information. In the description field of the new alias, IANA SHALL
record that it assigns a well-formed service name for the previous
service and point to the original assignment. In the description field
of the original assignment, IANA SHALL add a note that the service
name is historic, is not usable with many common service discovery
mechanisms, and provide a reference to the new alias, which can be
used in this way.</t>
<t>Names containing illegal characters to be replaced by hyphens:</t>
<texttable>
<ttcol></ttcol>
<ttcol></ttcol>
<ttcol></ttcol>
<c>914c/g</c>
<c>acmaint_dbd</c>
<c>acmaint_transd</c>
<c>atex_elmd</c>
<c>avanti_cdp</c>
<c>badm_priv</c>
<c>badm_pub</c>
<c>bdir_priv</c>
<c>bdir_pub</c>
<c>bmc_ctd_ldap</c>
<c>bmc_patroldb</c>
<c>boks_clntd</c>
<c>boks_servc</c>
<c>boks_servm</c>
<c>broker_service</c>
<c>bues_service</c>
<c>canit_store</c>
<c>cedros_fds</c>
<c>cl/1</c>
<c>contamac_icm</c>
<c>corel_vncadmin</c>
<c>csc_proxy</c>
<c>cvc_hostd</c>
<c>dbcontrol_agent</c>
<c>dec_dlm</c>
<c>dl_agent</c>
<c>documentum_s</c>
<c>dsmeter_iatc</c>
<c>dsx_monitor</c>
<c>elpro_tunnel</c>
<c>elvin_client</c>
<c>elvin_server</c>
<c>encrypted_admin</c>
<c>erunbook_agent</c>
<c>erunbook_server</c>
<c>esri_sde</c>
<c>EtherNet/IP-1</c>
<c>EtherNet/IP-2</c>
<c>event_listener</c>
<c>flr_agent</c>
<c>gds_db</c>
<c>ibm_wrless_lan</c>
<c>iceedcp_rx</c>
<c>iceedcp_tx</c>
<c>iclcnet_svinfo</c>
<c>idig_mux</c>
<c>ife_icorp</c>
<c>instl_bootc</c>
<c>instl_boots</c>
<c>intel_rci</c>
<c>interhdl_elmd</c>
<c>lan900_remote</c>
<c>LiebDevMgmt_A</c>
<c>LiebDevMgmt_C</c>
<c>LiebDevMgmt_DM</c>
<c>mapper-ws_ethd</c>
<c>matrix_vnet</c>
<c>mdbs_daemon</c>
<c>menandmice_noh</c>
<c>msl_lmd</c>
<c>nburn_id</c>
<c>ncr_ccl</c>
<c>nds_sso</c>
<c>netmap_lm</c>
<c>nms_topo_serv</c>
<c>notify_srvr</c>
<c>novell-lu6.2</c>
<c>nuts_bootp</c>
<c>nuts_dem</c>
<c>ocs_amu</c>
<c>ocs_cmu</c>
<c>pipe_server</c>
<c>pra_elmd</c>
<c>printer_agent</c>
<c>redstorm_diag</c>
<c>redstorm_find</c>
<c>redstorm_info</c>
<c>redstorm_join</c>
<c>resource_mgr</c>
<c>rmonitor_secure</c>
<c>rsvp_tunnel</c>
<c>sai_sentlm</c>
<c>sge_execd</c>
<c>sge_qmaster</c>
<c>shiva_confsrvr</c>
<c>sql*net</c>
<c>srvc_registry</c>
<c>stm_pproc</c>
<c>subntbcst_tftp</c>
<c>udt_os</c>
<c>universe_suite</c>
<c>veritas_pbx</c>
<c>vision_elmd</c>
<c>vision_server</c>
<c>wrs_registry</c>
<c>z39.50</c>
</texttable>
<t>In the case of "whois++", the service name will be
"whoisplusplus".</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sctpdccpexp"
title="Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation">
<t>Two Well Known UDP and TCP ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved
for experimental use <xref target="RFC4727"></xref>. This document
registers the same port numbers for SCTP and DCCP, and also instructs
IANA to automatically register these two port numbers for any new
transport protocol that will in the future share the port number
namespace.</t>
<t>Note that these port numbers are meant for temporary
experimentation and development in controlled environments. Before
using these port numbers, carefully consider the advice in <xref
target="udptcpexp"></xref> in this document, as well as in Sections 1
and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered
Useful" <xref target="RFC3692"></xref>. Most importantly, application
developers must request a permanent port number assignment from IANA
as described in <xref target="registration"></xref> before any kind of
non-experimental deployment.</t>
<texttable>
<ttcol></ttcol>
<ttcol></ttcol>
<c>Registration Technical Contact</c>
<c>IESG <iesg@ietf.org></c>
<c>Registration Owner</c>
<c>IETF <iesg@ietf.org></c>
<c>Transport Protocol</c>
<c>SCTP, DCCP</c>
<c>Port Number</c>
<c>1021</c>
<c>Port Name</c>
<c>RFC3692-style Experiment 1</c>
<c>Service Name</c>
<c>exp1</c>
<c>Reference</c>
<c>[RFCyyyy]</c>
</texttable>
<texttable>
<ttcol></ttcol>
<ttcol></ttcol>
<c>Registration Technical Contact</c>
<c>IESG <iesg@ietf.org></c>
<c>Registration Owner</c>
<c>IETF <iesg@ietf.org></c>
<c>Transport Protocol</c>
<c>SCTP, DCCP</c>
<c>Port Number</c>
<c>1022</c>
<c>Port Name</c>
<c>RFC3692-style Experiment 2</c>
<c>Service Name</c>
<c>exp2</c>
<c>Reference</c>
<c>[RFCyyyy]</c>
</texttable>
<t>[RFC Editor Note: Please change "yyyy" to the RFC number allocated
to this document before publication.]</t>
</section>
<section anchor="dccp" title="Updates to DCCP Registries">
<t>This document updates the IANA allocation procedures for the DCCP
Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries <xref
target="RFC4340"></xref>.</t>
<section title="DCCP Service Code Registry">
<t>Service Codes are allocated first-come-first-served according to
Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification <xref
target="RFC4340"></xref>. This document updates that section by
extending the guidelines given there in the following ways:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>IANA MAY assign new Service Codes without seeking Expert
Review using their discretion, but SHOULD seek expert review if
a request seeks more than five Service Codes.</t>
<t>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 <xref target="RFC4340"></xref>.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="DCCP Port Numbers Registry">
<t>The DCCP ports registry is defined by Section 19.9 of the DCCP
specification <xref target="RFC4340"></xref>. Allocations in this
registry require prior allocation of a Service Code. Not all Service
Codes require IANA-registered ports. This document updates that
section by extending the guidelines given there in the following
way:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>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
an "IETF Review" <xref target="RFC5226"></xref> prior to
allocation by IANA <xref target="RFC4340"></xref>.</t>
<t>IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more
than one DCCP server port.</t>
<t>The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server
port should be recorded in the ports registry.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</list></t>
<t>The DCCP specification <xref target="RFC4340"></xref> 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.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgments">
<t>The text in <xref target="dccp"></xref> is based on a suggestion by
Tom Phelan.</t>
<t>Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project <xref
target="TRILOGY"></xref>, a research project supported by the European
Commission under its Seventh Framework Program.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<!-- REFERENCE TEMPLATE
<reference anchor="reference.XXX">
<front>
<title>XXX</title>
<author initials="X." surname="XXX" fullname="XXX">
<organization abbrev="XXX">XXX</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>XXX</street>
<city>XXX</city>
<region>XXX</region>
<code>XXX</code>
<country>XXX</country>
</postal>
<phone>XXX</phone>
<facsimile>XXX</facsimile>
<email>XXX</email>
<uri>XXX</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date month="XXX" year="XXX"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="XXX" value="XXX"/>
<format type="XXX" target="XXX"/>
</reference>
-->
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.0768" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.0793" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2780" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3828" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4020" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4340" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4727" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5226" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.ANSI.X3-4.1986" ?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.0959" ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.0952'?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1078" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1700" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2782" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3232" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3692" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4342" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4960" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5237" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.touch-tcp-portnames" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes" ?>
<!-- <reference anchor="I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines">
<front>
<title>Guidelines for Transport Port Use</title>
<author fullname="Joe Touch" initials="J" surname="Touch">
<organization></organization>
</author>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value="Currently Unpublished" />
</reference>
-->
<reference anchor="SYSFORM">
<front>
<title>Application for System (Well Known) Port Number</title>
<author surname="Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)">
<organization />
</author>
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="USRFORM">
<front>
<title>Application for User (Registered) Port Number</title>
<author surname="Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)">
<organization />
</author>
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="PORTREG">
<front>
<title>Port Numbers Registry</title>
<author surname="Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)">
<organization />
</author>
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="PROTSERVREG">
<front>
<title>Protocol and Service Names Registry</title>
<author surname="Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)">
<organization />
</author>
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="SRVREG">
<front>
<title>DNS SRV Service Types Registry</title>
<author surname="">
<organization />
</author>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value="http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="TRILOGY">
<front>
<title>Trilogy Project</title>
<author>
<organization />
</author>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value="http://www.trilogy-project.org/" />
</reference>
<!--
<reference anchor="CUPS" target="http://www.cups.org/">
<front>
<title>Common Unix Printing System</title>
<author fullname="" initials="" surname="">
<organization />
</author>
</front>
</reference>
-->
<reference anchor="UPnP">
<front>
<title>Internet Gateway Device (IGD) V 1.0</title>
<author fullname="UPnP Forum">
<organization>UPnP Forum</organization>
</author>
<date day="12" month="November" year="2001" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 22:38:14 |