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