# Port for URN->URC resolution

Mitra (mitra@path.net)
Sat, 22 Oct 94 16:39:36 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?""

    Date: Sat, 22 Oct 94 16:39:36 -0400

    Message-Id: <aacec7e501021004a1ad@[192.190.111.98]>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Port for URN->URC resolution

In article <199410211004.LAA07798@lust.mrrl.lut.ac.uk>, you write:
>I'm using port 10043 for this server. Mitra et al - any progress on
>choosing a port number ?

Oops - my feet have hardly touched down since IAB and WWW conferences,
a number of implementors at WWW expressed strong enthusiasm for
implementing the scheme, I'll wait till they have had a chance to check
over the detailed spec before mentioning names.

I'll ask for a registered port - but one question - should this be in the
secure (<1000) or insecure (>1000) area, if we go the secure root, then
only people with root access to the server will be able to get the resolver
running, but that doesnt seem too much of a limitation to me?

- Mitra

=======================================================================
Mitra mitra@path.net
Internet Consulting (415)488-0944
<http://www.path.net/mitra> fax (415)488-0988

- Next message: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?""