Subject: [BEHAVE] Would anyone be negatively affected by this change?

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:35:27 -0400

It was recently pointed out to us by Peter Koch
(in a message forwarded to this list by Magnus)
that
     http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
assigns a service name of "nat-stun-port" to port 3478,
which is the well-known port assigned to STUN.
As Peter points out, this introduces an inconsistency
with RFC 2782.

One way to correct this inconsistency is to change the
service name from "nat-stun-port" to just "stun".

The authors of draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis would like to know
if anyone would be negatively affected by this change if we were
to go ahead with it. Does anyone currently use "nat-stun-port"
as a service name for STUN?

- Philip

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave