# Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

Rich Salz (rsalz@osf.org)
Mon, 24 Oct 94 23:25:02 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Dave Brennan: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"

    From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>

    Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 23:25:02 -0400

    Message-Id: <9410250325.AA16280@sulphur.osf.org>

    To: mitra@path.net, uri-request@mocha.bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

>I'd say this ought to be a secure port from the word go. There's already
>enough concern about authentication, we might as well not open another
>hole.

It is foolish to think that a network service is secure because the
server is listening on a particular port, or because the server requires
clients to originate on a particular port. BSD did nobody any real
favors when they came up with the "secure port" concept.
/r$

- Next message: Dave Brennan: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"