# Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

Dirk Herr-Hoyman (hoymand@gate.net)
Sun, 23 Oct 1994 19:50:30 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Rich Salz: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"

    Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 19:50:30 -0400

    Message-Id: <aad06e3f080210048d43@[199.227.1.76]>

    To: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    From: hoymand@gate.net (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)

    Subject: Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

At 8:39 PM 10/22/94, Mitra wrote:
>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 ?
>
>
>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?

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.

    --
    Dirk Herr-Hoyman <hoymand@gate.net> |           I tried to contain myself
    CyberBeach Publishing               |                                but
       * Internet publishing services   |                          I got out
    Lake Worth, Florida, USA            |
    Home Page: <URL:http://www.gate.net/~hoymand/cyberbeach.html>
    Phone:     +1.407.540.8309

- Next message: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Rich Salz: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"