# Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

Patrik Faltstrom (paf@nada.kth.se)
Tue, 25 Oct 1994 18:08:32 +0100

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

    Message-Id: <aad2eac213021004f211@[130.237.225.201]>

    Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 18:08:32 +0100

    To: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu (Dave Crocker)

    From: paf@nada.kth.se (Patrik Faltstrom)

    Subject: Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

At 15.29 94-10-25, Dave Crocker wrote:
>While it seems entirely appropriate to assign a Well Known Port number for
>this use, I'd like to underscore the concern for calling it 'secure'. it
>isn't secure.
>
>This does not mean that 'the security isn't very good'. It means there is
>no security at all. The difference is important and therefore it is
>essential that a discussion like this not use the 'S' word at all.

I completely agree with you. Let's skip the 'S'-word.

Still, I want a well-known port number below 1000, not depending if the
number we give it is inside a range that have a name or not in any
IP implementation. :-)

Does this vote make sense?

paf

- Next message: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: John Curran: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"