Subject: [xmpp] UDP ports

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:56:38 -0700

Going through the port registrations for 3920, I told IANA not to renew the
5222/udp and 5269/udp registrations that they automatically gave us last
time.  They will be marked as reserved, and we'll be able to get them back
later if we need them.

If anyone has an issue with that, please speak up quickly.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:02:44 +0000

> If anyone has an issue with that, please speak up quickly.

Seems sane.

/K

---

From: Matthew Wild <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:05:13 +0000

> time.  They will be marked as reserved, and we'll be able to get them back

If they are reserved, I presume that means no-one else can claim them?
In that case, what's the actual difference whether we renew the
registration or not?

Also, do we have registrations for SCTP? Is that automatic?

Regards,
Matthew

---

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:18:32 -0700

> In that case, what's the actual difference whether we renew the

Presumably, if there was a good reason to use them, they could be used; it's
not an absolute.  More of a guideline than a rule.

> Also, do we have registrations for SCTP? Is that automatic?

We don't have an SCTP binding defined.  If someone wanted to write an I-D
that said how to do XMPP over SCTP, that would be the doc that the
registration pointed to.  If there was consensus in the WG that this was
something we all wanted, we could pursue revving the charter to include the
work.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Jehan Pagès <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:04:30 +0900

Hi,

> time.  They will be marked as reserved, and we'll be able to get them back

Just for my personal knowledge, is there a reason why they gave us UDP
port registration automatically? Is this something IANA is used to do
each time they are asked TCP ports? Or did we have, once upon a time,
some standard proposition where XMPP would work over a UDP connection?

> If anyone has an issue with that, please speak up quickly.

That's just to know, I have personally no issue with not using UDP for XMPP.

Thanks.

Jehan

---

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:50:19 -0700

> some standard proposition where XMPP would work over a UDP connection?

Yes, as far as I can tell, the policy used to be to just assign both UDP and
TCP for each port.  XMPP over UDP has been suggested several times, but
never in a way that was actually useful.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:59:04 +0000

>time.  They will be marked as reserved, and we'll be able to get them back
Small pedantic correction: if/when draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports is 
approved for publication as an RFC, ports for transport protocols not 
explicitly requested would be marked as reserved. This means that 
whoever have requested the original port number is likely to be able to 
get allocations for other transports, althought there would be no 
guaranty. However, if IANA runs out of free ports, it will start giving 
away reserved port numbers.

>If anyone has an issue with that, please speak up quickly.
No issue, I think this is exactly the right thing to do.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:14:40 +0000

> time.  They will be marked as reserved, and we'll be able to get  

I'd rather keep them, on balance.

Reasons:

1) We have them anyway.

2) It provides a pair of port numbers which are relatively certain to  
be clear of any other services, and as such is a reasonable default.

3) We include both port numbers as a specified fallback in the case  
where no SRV records exist.

If we were registering them for the first time, I think we'd need  
strong arguments, but changing the existing registration requires  
arguments in favour of dropping, and I don't see any. I'm willing to  
change my mind, of course.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Peter Mount <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:23:24 +0000

Like Dave just said, I'd rather keep them as we already have them allocated
and although not currently used you never know what someone may come up with
a week after they are released...

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 2) It provides a pair of port numbers which are relatively certain to be
> clear of any other services, and as such is a reasonable default.
>
> 3) We include both port numbers as a specified fallback in the case where
> no SRV records exist.
>
> If we were registering them for the first time, I think we'd need strong
> arguments, but changing the existing registration requires arguments in
> favour of dropping, and I don't see any. I'm willing to change my mind, of
> course.
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]<[email-masked]>
> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>

-- 
Peter Mount

Email: [email-masked]
  Web:  http://retep.org
Phone: +44 (0)7903 155887
 XMPP: [email-masked] (Primary)
 XMPP: [email-masked] (blackberry)

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:31:19 +0000

> a week after they are released...
My point was that they *are* very much currently used; firstly,  
traditionally XMPP services listen on 5222/5269 to the extent that  
finding one that isn't is quite a challenge (xmpp.org being the only  
one I'm aware of).

Secondly,  
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22#section-3.2.2  
refers to them, and this has proven a useful feature of the protocol.

Dave.

---

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:35:34 +0000

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> wrote:
> traditionally XMPP services listen on 5222/5269 to the extent that finding
> one that isn't is quite a challenge (xmpp.org being the only one I'm aware
> of).

Using UDP?

> Secondly,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22#section-3.2.2 refers
> to them, and this has proven a useful feature of the protocol.

Yes, but 3920bis is explicitly only TCP binding.

/K

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:37:38 +0000

On Mon Jan 17 10:35:34 2011, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> and although not currently used you never know what someone may  
> come up
> >> with
Oh...

You know, I should have a timelock on my email on a Monday morning.

Yeah, ignore everything I've said, I'm obviously half asleep.

> refers

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:44:26 -0800

> time.  They will be marked as reserved, and we'll be able to get them back

I assume these were only assigned due to past practices, not because we specifically requested them.  I see no reason to specifically request these now.  If ever we need these, we can request them then.  As IANA notes, they will be reserved.

-- Kurt