Issue 2885: Naming FTF: Allocation of port number (naming_ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: The INS Adopted Specification lists port 9999 as a place holder until a final allocation of a port number has been made. The apparent intent is to register a port number above 1024. The current status hurts interoperability of emerging implementations, for the following reasons: - Use of port number 9999 should be discouraged, as it is already registered to Anoop Tewari <anoop@next.distinct.com>: distinct 9999/tcp distinct distinct 9999/udp distinct - There is already an well-known port number assigned to Christian Callsen <Christian.Callsen@eng.sun.com>: omginitialrefs 900/tcp OMG Initial Refs omginitialrefs 900/udp OMG Initial Refs Why is an allocation of a port number > 1024 desirable, when a well-known port has been assigned already? If a different port number is registered with IANA, what is the purpose of the port 900 allocation? The longer the final value remains undetermined, the more implementations will hard-code some value, which is likely to be different from the final value, which will give later interoperability problems. Resolution: Application made to IANA for a port assignment. Port number assigned is 2809. Revised Text: Section 13.6.7.2 Actions taken: September 13, 1999: received issue May 4, 2000: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:04:00 +0200 Message-Id: <199909131904.VAA22988@pandora> From: Martin von Loewis To: issues@omg.org Subject: Naming FTF: Allocation of port number User-Agent: SEMI/1.13.3 (Komaiko) FLIM/1.12.5 (Hirahata) Emacs/20.4 (sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.3 - "Komaiko") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: 0c67ab8ff24a8bbeea3c4e096449102a The INS Adopted Specification lists port 9999 as a place holder until a final allocation of a port number has been made. The apparent intent is to register a port number above 1024. The current status hurts interoperability of emerging implementations, for the following reasons: - Use of port number 9999 should be discouraged, as it is already registered to Anoop Tewari : distinct 9999/tcp distinct distinct 9999/udp distinct - There is already an well-known port number assigned to Christian Callsen : omginitialrefs 900/tcp OMG Initial Refs omginitialrefs 900/udp OMG Initial Refs Why is an allocation of a port number > 1024 desirable, when a well-known port has been assigned already? If a different port number is registered with IANA, what is the purpose of the port 900 allocation? The longer the final value remains undetermined, the more implementations will hard-code some value, which is likely to be different from the final value, which will give later interoperability problems. Regards, Martin