[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-klensin-name-munging and well-known port request





--On 3. november 2003 14:53 -0500 John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> wrote:

With regard to the "what if it changes" question, my hope and expectation
is to keep it very simple.  It is simple enough today that the issues
that might arise with some protocol that takes 20 (or 50) pages of text
to describe should not apply here.  However, if the IESG remains
concerned about the issue, I suggest that we modify the thing, right now,
to include a version number parameter (probably as the first one) that
would avoid needing to assign a second port if there are changes.

Extended debate about this will hold up a bit of internationalization
work, and momentum, which exists right now. I hope that can be avoided.

having a version number (first!) rarely wastes more than a few bytes, and if you turn out to need it, you really need it.
I see the arguments for assigning the port "now" - but the version number issue clearly points out why assigning the port before thinking a bit might have been a mistake :-)


Harald