draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-02.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03.txt 
Transport Area Working Group M. Cotton Transport Area Working Group M. Cotton
Internet-Draft ICANN Internet-Draft ICANN
Updates: 2780, 4340 L. Eggert Updates: 2780, 2782, 4340 L. Eggert
(if approved) Nokia (if approved) Nokia
Intended status: BCP A. Mankin Intended status: BCP A. Mankin
Expires: February 12, 2010 Johns Hopkins Univ. Expires: April 29, 2010 Johns Hopkins Univ.
J. Touch J. Touch
USC/ISI USC/ISI
M. Westerlund M. Westerlund
Ericsson Ericsson
August 11, 2009 October 26, 2009
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management
of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-02 draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
skipping to change at page 2, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 12, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other
requests related to the transport protocol port number and service requests related to the transport protocol port number and service
name registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind name registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind
these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability
of the registry. of the registry.
This document updates RFC2780 by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of This document updates RFC2780 by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
that RFC, and it updates the IANA allocation procedures for DCCP as that RFC, it updates the IANA allocation procedures for DCCP as
defined in RFC4340. defined in RFC4340, and it updates RFC2782 to clarify what a service
name is and how it is registered.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation . . . . 7 5. Service Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry 5.1. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records . . . . . . . . . . 8
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Basic Principles of Port Number Conservation . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation . . . . 9
5.2. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . 10 7. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry
5.3. New Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service 7.1. Past Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Name Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Updated Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Port Number or Service Name Registration . . . . . . . . . 12 7.3. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration . . . . . . . 14 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service
6.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Name Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Port Number and Service Name Registration . . . . . . . . 14
6.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration . . . . . . . 16
6.6. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.6. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 18 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 20
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number
values and service names for use with the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
[RFC0768] have had less than clear guidelines. New transport
protocols have been added - the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
[RFC4342] - and new mechanisms have been developed (DNS SRV records
[RFC2782]), each with separate registries and separate guidelines.
The community recognized the need for additional procedures beyond
just assignment; notably modification, revocation, and release.
A key factor of this procedural streamlining is to establish
identical registration procedures for all IETF transport protocols.
This document brings the IANA procedures for TCP and UDP in line with
those already for SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a single process that
requesters and IANA follow for all requests for all transport
protocols, including those not yet defined.
In addition to detailing the IANA procedures for the initial
assignment of port numbers and service names, this document also
specifies post-assignment procedures that until now have been handled
in an ad hoc manner. These include procedures to de-register a port
number that is no longer in use, to re-use a port number allocated
for one application that is no longer in use for another application,
and procedure by which IANA can unilaterally revoke a prior port
number registration. Section 8 discusses the specifics of these
procedures and processes that requesters and IANA follow for all
requests for all current and future transport protocols.
It is important to note that ownership of registered port numbers and
service names remains with IANA. For protocols developed by IETF
working groups, IANA now also offers a method for the "early"
assignment of port numbers and service names [RFC4020], as described
in Section 8.1.
This document updates IANA's allocation guidelines [RFC2780] for UDP
and TCP port numbers by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of [RFC2780].
(Note that different sections of [RFC2780] were updated in February
2008 by [RFC5237].) This document also updates the IANA allocation
procedures for DCCP as defined in [RFC4340]. It updates [RFC2782] to
clarify what a service name is and how it is registered, because
[RFC2782] simply refers to [RFC1700] when defining service names,
which in turn contains now-obsolete copies [RFC3232] of various IANA
registries [PORTREG][PROTSERVREG].
2. Motivation
Information about the registration procedures for the port registry
has existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number
registrations on the IANA web site [SYSFORM] [USRFORM], an
introductory text section in the file listing the port number
registrations themselves [PORTREG], and two brief sections of the
IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].
Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been
historically unclear. Service names were originally created as
mnemonic identifiers for port numbers without a well-defined syntax,
beyond the 14-character limit mentioned on the IANA website [SYSFORM]
[USRFORM]. Even that length limit has not been consistently applied,
and some assigned service names are 15 characters long. When service
identification via DNS SRV RRs were introduced, the ambiguities in
the syntactic definition of the service namespace, together with a
requirement by IANA to only assign service names and port numbers in
combination, led to the creation of an ad hoc service name registry
outside of the control of IANA [SRVREG].
It has also been historically unclear if the "name" entries
registered in the "Protocol and Service Names Registry" [PROTSERVREG]
can be used as service names. [RFC0952] defines the names in that
registry as either service names or protocol names. It is likely
that these names has been interpreted as being valid service names
and consequently have been used, e.g., in SRV records. This
motivates why this document merges the 166 protocol and service names
defined in that registry into the port number registry [PORTREG].
This document aggregates all this scattered information into a single
reference that aligns and clearly defines the management procedures
for both port numbers and service names. It gives more detailed
guidance to prospective requesters of ports and service names than
the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures
for the management of the registry, so that management requests can
complete in a timely manner.
This document defines rules for registration of service names without
associated port numbers, for such usages as DNS SRV records, which
was not possible under the previous IANA procedures. These new
procedures also merge service name registrations from the non-IANA
"ad hoc" registry [SRVREG] and from the the IANA "Protocol and
Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] into the IANA "Port and Service
Name" registry [PORTREG], which from here on is the single
authoritative registry for service names and port numbers.
An additional purpose of this document is to describe the principles
that guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint
stewards of the port number registry. TCP and UDP have been a
remarkable success over the last decades. Thousands of applications
and application-level protocols have registered ports and service
names for their use, and there is every reason to believe that this
trend will continue into the future. It is hence extremely important
that management of the registry follow principles that ensure its
long-term usefulness as a shared resource. Section 7 discusses these
principles in detail.
3. Background
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] have enjoyed a remarkable success Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] have enjoyed a remarkable success
over the decades as the two most widely used transport protocols on over the decades as the two most widely used transport protocols on
the Internet. They have introduced the concept of "ports" as logical the Internet. They have relied on the concept of "ports" as logical
entities for Internet communication. Ports serve two purposes: entities for Internet communication. Ports serve two purposes:
first, they provide a demultiplexing identifier to differentiate first, they provide a demultiplexing identifier to differentiate
transport sessions between the same pair of endpoints, and second, transport sessions between the same pair of endpoints, and second,
they also identify the application protocol and associated service to they may also identify the application protocol and associated
which processes bind. Newer transport protocols, such as the Stream service to which processes bind. Newer transport protocols, such as
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Datagram the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342] have adopted the concept Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342] have adopted
of ports for their communication sessions and use port numbers in the the concept of ports for their communication sessions and use 16-bit
same way as TCP and UDP. UDP-Lite [RFC3828], a variant of UDP, is port numbers in the same way as TCP and UDP (and UDP-Lite [RFC3828],
also making use of UDP port numbers. For the purposes of this a variant of UDP).
document, all rules stated for UDP also apply to UDP-Lite, because it
uses the same assignments as UDP.
Port numbers are the original and most widely used means for Port numbers are the original and most widely used means for
application and service identification on the Internet. Ports are application and service identification on the Internet. Ports are
16-bit numbers, and the combination of source and destination port 16-bit numbers, and the combination of source and destination port
numbers together with the IP addresses of the communicating end numbers together with the IP addresses of the communicating end
systems uniquely identifies a session of a given transport protocol. systems uniquely identifies a session of a given transport protocol.
Port numbers are also known by their corresponding service names such Port numbers are also known by their corresponding service names such
as "telnet" for port number 23 and both "http" and "www" for port as "telnet" for port number 23 and both "http" and "www" for port
number 80. number 80.
Hosts running services, hosts accessing services on other hosts, and Hosts running services, hosts accessing services on other hosts, and
intermediate devices (such as firewalls and NATs) that restrict intermediate devices (such as firewalls and NATs) that restrict
services need to agree on which service corresponds to a particular services need to agree on which service corresponds to a particular
destination port. Although this can be a local decision between the destination port. Although this is ultimately a local decision with
endpoints of a connection, most Internet components use a single, meaning only between the endpoints of a connection, most Internet
shared view of this association, provided by the Internet Assigned components use a single, shared view of this association, provided by
Numbers Authority (IANA) through the port number registry [REGISTRY]. the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) through the port
number registry [PORTREG].
Over time, the assumption that a particular port number necessarily
implies a particular service may become less true. For example,
multiple instances of the same service can run on different ports on
the same host, or NATs that support port mapping or registration
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp][UPnP] need to offer service instances using
the same port on several internal hosts available to the public
Internet on different ports. This document assumes, however, that
ports are most often used in a conventional manner - where endpoints
and intermediate devices all share the common view of the IANA port
number registry.
Applications either use numeric port numbers directly, look up port Applications either use numeric port numbers directly, look up port
numbers based on service names via system calls such as numbers based on service names via system calls such as
getservbyname() on UNIX, or - more recently - use service names to getservbyname() on UNIX, look up port numbers by performing queries
look up a service resource records (SRV RRs) [RFC2782] via the Domain for DNS SRV records [RFC2782][I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] or
Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] in a variety of ways [RFC1078] determine port numbers in a variety of other ways [RFC1078].
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd][I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] to
obtain the port number of a given service.
Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply
to IANA for an assigned port number and service name for a specific to IANA for an assigned port number and service name for a specific
application, and may - after successful registration - assume that no application, and may - after successful registration - assume that no
other application will use that port number and service name for its other application will use that port number and service name for its
communication sessions. Alternatively, application designers may communication sessions. Alternatively, application designers may
also only ask for an assigned service name, if their application does also only ask for an assigned service name, if their application does
not require a port number. The latter alternative is encouraged when not require a fixed port number. The latter alternative is
possible, in order to conserve the more limited port number space. encouraged when possible, in order to conserve the more limited port
It is important to note that ownership of registered port numbers and number space. This includes, for example, applications that use DNS
service names remains with IANA. SRV records to look up port numbers at runtime, or transports that
use service names not coupled to port numbers, e.g., TCP portnames
For protocols developed by IETF working groups, IANA offers a method [I-D.touch-tcp-portnames].
for the "early" assignment of port numbers and service names, in line
with [RFC4020], as described in Section 6.1.
This document updates [RFC2780] by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
that RFC. Note that [RFC5237] updates a different subset of the IANA
allocation guidelines originally given in [RFC2780] (specifically,
the policies on the namespace of the IP protocol number and IPv6 next
header).
2. Conventions Used in this Document 4. Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
3. Motivation 5. Service Names
For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number
values and service names for use with TCP and UDP have had less than
clear guidelines. Information about the registration procedures for
the port registry existed in three locations: the forms for
requesting port number registrations on the IANA web site [SYSFORM]
[USRFORM], an introductory text section in the file listing the port
number registrations themselves [REGISTRY], and two brief sections of
[RFC2780].
Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been Service names are the unique key in the Port and Service Name
historically unclear. Service names were originally created as registry. This unique symbolic name for a service may also be used
mnemonic identifiers for port numbers without a well-defined syntax, for other purposes, such as DNS SRV records [RFC2782]. Within the
beyond the 14-character limit mentioned on the IANA website [SYSFORM] registry, this unique key ensures that different services can be
[USRFORM]. (Even that length limit has not been consistently unambiguously distinguished, thus preventing name collisions and
applied, and some assigned service names are 15 characters long.) avoiding confusion about who is the registration owner of a
When service identification via DNS SRV RRs became popular, the particular entry.
ambiguities in the syntactic definition of the service namespace,
together with a requirement by IANA to only assign service names and
port numbers in combination, led to the creation of an ad-hoc service
name registry outside of the control of IANA [SRVTYPE].
This document aggregates this scattered information into a single For each service name, there may exist zero or more associated port
reference that aligns and clearly defines the management procedures number assignments. A port number assignment associated with a
for both port numbers and service names. It gives more detailed service name contains the transport protocol, port number and
guidance to prospective requesters of ports and service names than possibly additional data, such as a DCCP service code. There may be
the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures more than one service name associated with a particular transport
for the management of the registry, so that management requests can protocol and port. This SHOULD only occur when all such service
complete in a timely manner. It also merges the service name names are aliases for the same service, such as with "www" and
registrations that have occurred in the ad-hoc [SRVTYPE] registry "http".
into the IANA registry [REGISTRY], because under the new IANA
guidelines, registering service names without port numbers has become
possible.
A key factor of this procedural streamlining is to establish Service names are assigned on a "first come, first served" basis, as
identical registration procedures for all IETF transport protocols. described in Section 8.1. Names should be brief and informative,
This document brings the IANA procedures for TCP and UDP in line with avoiding words or abbreviations that are redundant in the context of
those already in effect for SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a single the registry (e.g., "port", "service", "protocol", etc.) Names
process that requesters and IANA follow for all requests for all referring to discovery services, e.g., using multicast or broadcast
transport protocols, including those not yet defined. to identify endpoints capable of a given service, SHOULD use an
easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc").
A second purpose of this document is to describe the principles that 5.1. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records
guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint stewards
of the port number registry. TCP and UDP have been a remarkable
success over the last decades. Thousands of applications and
application-level protocols have registered ports and service names
for their use, and there is every reason to believe that this trend
will continue into the future. It is hence extremely important that
management of the registry follow principles that ensure its long-
term usefulness as a shared resource. Section 5 discusses these
principles in detail.
In addition to detailing the IANA procedures for the initial [RFC2782] defines SRV records for the DNS system. One part of the
assignment of port numbers and service names, this document also DNS name of an SRV record includes what is called "SERVICE", i.e., a
specifies post-assignment procedures that until now have been handled symbolic name for the service. This document updates [RFC2782] in
in an ad-hoc manner. These include procedures to de-register a port order to clarify that the symbolic name ("SERVICE") SHALL only be a
number that is no longer in use, to re-use a port number allocated service name as defined in this document that has been registered
for one application that is no longer in use for another application, with IANA and recorded in the port number and service name registry
and procedure by which IANA can unilaterally revoke a prior port [PORTREG]. This to ensure that only a single registry exist and name
number registration. Section 6 discusses the specifics of these collisions can be more easily avoided in the future.
procedures.
4. Port Number Ranges 6. Port Number Ranges
TCP, UDP (and UDP-Lite), SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for TCP, UDP (and UDP-Lite), SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for
their port number registries. The port registries for all these their port number registries. The port registries for all these
transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers, and transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers, and
Section 5.2 describes the IANA procedures for each range in detail: Section 7.3 describes the IANA procedures for each range in detail:
o the Well Known Ports, also known as the System Ports, from 0-1023 o the Well Known Ports, also known as the System Ports, from 0-1023
(assigned by IANA) (assigned by IANA)
o the Registered Ports, also known as the User Ports, from 1024- o the Registered Ports, also known as the User Ports, from 1024-
49151 (assigned by IANA) 49151 (assigned by IANA)
o the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private Ports, from 49152- o the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private Ports, from 49152-
65535 (never assigned) 65535 (never assigned)
skipping to change at page 7, line 37 skipping to change at page 9, line 24
Reserved port numbers include values at the edges of each range, Reserved port numbers include values at the edges of each range,
e.g., 0, 1023, 1024, etc., which may be used to extend these e.g., 0, 1023, 1024, etc., which may be used to extend these
ranges or the overall port number space in the future. ranges or the overall port number space in the future.
In order to keep the size of the registry manageable, IANA typically In order to keep the size of the registry manageable, IANA typically
only records the Assigned and Reserved port numbers and service names only records the Assigned and Reserved port numbers and service names
in the registry. Unassigned values are typically not explicitly in the registry. Unassigned values are typically not explicitly
listed. listed.
As a data point, when this document was written, approximately 76% of As a data point, when this document was written, approximately 76% of
the TCP and UDP Well Known Ports were assigned, as were a significant the TCP and UDP Well Known Ports were assigned, and approximately 9%
fraction of the Registered Ports. (As noted, Dynamic Ports are never of the Registered Ports were assigned. (As noted, Dynamic Ports are
assigned.) never assigned.)
4.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation 6.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation
Of the Well Known ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and Of the Well Known ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and
1022), together with their respective service names ("exp1" and 1022), together with their respective service names ("exp1" and
"exp2"), have been assigned for experimentation with new applications "exp2"), have been assigned for experimentation with new applications
and application-layer protocols that require a port number in the and application-layer protocols that require a port number in the
assigned ports ranges [RFC4727]. This document registers the same assigned ports ranges [RFC4727].
two port numbers and service names for experimentation with new
application-layer protocols over SCTP and DCCP in Section 8.2.
Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of [RFC3692] for how these Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental and
experimental port numbers are to be used. Specifically, they SHOULD Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] for how these
only be used for local experiments in controlled environments, and experimental port numbers are to be used.
they SHOULD NOT be used on the global Internet. Many new
applications and application-layer protocols can be experimented with This document registers the same two port numbers and service names
without requiring a port in the Well Known or Registered ports range, for experimentation with new application-layer protocols over SCTP
and port numbers in the Dynamic Ports range can be also used. and DCCP in Section 10.2.
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to limit access to these ports. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to limit access to these ports.
Users SHOULD take measures to ensure that experimental ports are Users SHOULD take measures to ensure that experimental ports are
connecting to the intended process. For example, users of these connecting to the intended process. For example, users of these
experimental ports might include a 64-bit nonce, once on each segment experimental ports might include a 64-bit nonce, once on each segment
of a message-oriented channel (e.g., UDP), or once at the beginning of a message-oriented channel (e.g., UDP), or once at the beginning
of a byte-stream (e.g., TCP), which is used to confirm that the port of a byte-stream (e.g., TCP), which is used to confirm that the port
is being used as intended. Such confirmation of intended use is is being used as intended. Such confirmation of intended use is
especially important when these ports are associated with privileged especially important when these ports are associated with privileged
(e.g., system or administrator) processes. (e.g., system or administrator) processes.
5. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry Management 7. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry Management
Management procedures for the port number and service name registry Management procedures for the port number and service name registry
include allocation of port numbers and service names upon request, as include allocation of port numbers and service names upon request, as
well as coordination of information about existing allocations. The well as coordination of information about existing allocations. The
latter includes maintaining contact and description information about latter includes maintaining contact and description information about
assignments, revoking abandoned assignments, and redefining assignments, revoking abandoned assignments, and redefining
assignments when needed. Of these procedures, port number allocation assignments when needed. Of these procedures, port number allocation
is most critical, because of the limited number of remaining port is most critical, in order to continue to conserve the remaining port
numbers. The namespace available for service names is much larger, numbers.
which allows for simpler management procedures.
As noted earlier, only ~9% of the Registered Port space is currently
assigned. The current rate of assignment is approximately 400 ports/
year, and has remained linear for the past 8 years. At that rate, if
similar conservation continues, this resource will sustain another 85
years of assignment - without the need to resort to reassignment of
released values or revocation. Note that the namespace available for
service names is even larger, which allows for a simpler management
procedures.
7.1. Past Principles
Before the publication of this document, the principles of port Before the publication of this document, the principles of port
number and service name management followed some simple, mostly number and service name management followed a few mostly undocumented
undocumented guidelines: guidelines. They are recorded here for historical purposes, and this
document updates them in Section 7.2. These principles were:
o TCP and UDP ports were simultaneously allocated when either was o TCP and UDP ports were simultaneously allocated when either was
requested requested
o Port numbers were the primary allocation; service names were o Port numbers were the primary allocation; service names were
informative only, and did not have a well-defined syntax informative only, and did not have a well-defined syntax
o Port numbers were conserved informally, and sometimes o Port numbers were conserved informally, and sometimes
inconsistently (e.g., some services were allocated ranges of many inconsistently (e.g., some services were allocated ranges of many
port numbers even where not strictly necessary) port numbers even where not strictly necessary)
o SCTP and DCCP port number and service name registries were managed o SCTP and DCCP port number and service name registries were managed
separately from the TCP/UDP registries separately from the TCP/UDP registries
o Until recently, service names could not be assigned without o Service names could not be assigned in the ports registry without
assigning a corresponding port number assigning a corresponding port number at the same time
This document attempts to document, clarify and align these This document attempts to document, clarify and align these
guidelines in order to more conservatively manage the limited guidelines in order to more conservatively manage the limited
remaining port number space and to enable and promote the use of remaining port number space and to enable and promote the use of
service names for service identification without associated port service names for service identification without associated port
numbers, where possible. numbers, where possible.
5.1. Basic Principles of Port Number Conservation 7.2. Updated Principles
This section summarizes the basic principles by which IANA attempts This section summarizes the basic principles by which IANA attempts
to conserve the port number space. This description is intended to to conserve the port number space. This description is intended to
inform applicants requesting port numbers. IANA decisions are not inform applicants requesting port numbers. IANA decisions are not
required to be bound to these principles, however; other factors may required to be bound to these principles, however; other factors may
come into play, and exceptions may occur where deemed in the best come into play, and exceptions may occur where deemed in the best
interest of the Internet. interest of the Internet.
The basic principle of port number registry management is to conserve The basic principle of port number registry management is to conserve
use of the port space where possible. Extensions to support larger use of the port space where possible. Extensions to support larger
port number spaces would require changing many core protocols of the port number spaces would require changing many core protocols of the
current Internet in a way that would not be backward compatible and current Internet in a way that would not be backward compatible and
interfere with both current and legacy applications. interfere with both current and legacy applications.
Conservation of the port number space recognizes that because this Conservation of the port number space recognizes that because this
space is a limited resource, applications are expected to participate space is a limited resource, applications are expected to participate
in the traffic demultiplexing process where feasible. The port in the traffic demultiplexing process where feasible. The port
numbers are expected to encode as little information as possible that numbers are expected to encode as little information as possible that
will still enable an application to perform further demultiplexing by will still enable an application to perform further demultiplexing by
itself. In particular, there should be: itself. In particular:
o only one assigned port number per service or application o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number per service or
application
o only one assigned port number for all versions of a service (e.g., o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all versions
running the service with or without a security mechanism) of a service (e.g., running the service with or without a security
mechanism, or for updated variants of a service)
o only one assigned port number for all different types of devices o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all different
using or participating in the same service types of devices using or participating in the same service
o IANA will allocate port numbers only for the transport protocols
explicitly named in an registration request
o IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of
de-registration, revocation, and transfer
o IANA may begin assigning service names that do not request a
corresponding port number allocation under a simple "First Come,
First Served" policy [RFC5226] (assignments involving port numbers
still require "Expert Review")
A given service is expected to further demultiplex messages where A given service is expected to further demultiplex messages where
possible. For example, applications and protocols are expected to possible. For example, applications and protocols are expected to
include in-band version information, so that future versions of the include in-band version information, so that future versions of the
application or protocol can share the same allocated port. application or protocol can share the same allocated port.
Applications and protocols are also expected to be able to Applications and protocols are also expected to be able to
efficiently use a single allocated port for multiple sessions, either efficiently use a single allocated port for multiple sessions, either
by demultiplexing multiple streams within one port, or using the by demultiplexing multiple streams within one port, or using the
allocated port to coordinate using dynamic ports for subsequent allocated port to coordinate using dynamic ports for subsequent
exchanges (e.g., in the spirit of FTP [RFC0959]). exchanges (e.g., in the spirit of FTP [RFC0959]).
skipping to change at page 10, line 19 skipping to change at page 12, line 25
o for firewall filtering purposes o for firewall filtering purposes
The process and protocol identifier use suggests that anything a The process and protocol identifier use suggests that anything a
single process can demultiplex, or that can be encoded into a single single process can demultiplex, or that can be encoded into a single
protocol, should be. The firewall filtering use suggests that some protocol, should be. The firewall filtering use suggests that some
uses that could be de-multiplexed or encoded must be separated to uses that could be de-multiplexed or encoded must be separated to
allow for firewall management. Note that this latter use is much allow for firewall management. Note that this latter use is much
less sound, because port numbers have meaning only for the two less sound, because port numbers have meaning only for the two
endpoints involved in a connection, and drawing conclusions about the endpoints involved in a connection, and drawing conclusions about the
service that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is service that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is
inherently problematic. inherently problematic. Further, previous separation of protocol
variants based on security capabilities (e.g., HTTP on port 80 vs.
HTTPS on port 443) is not recommended for new protocols, because all
should be security-capable and capable of negotiating the use of
security in-band.
5.2. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges IANA will begin assigning protocol numbers only for those transport
protocols explicitly included in a registration request. This ends
the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number
to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is only
for one of these transport protocols. The new allocation procedure
conserves resources by only allocating a port number to an
application for those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or
DCCP) it actually uses. The port number will be marked as Reserved -
instead of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other
transport protocols. When applications start supporting the use of
some of those additional transport protocols, their implementors MUST
request IANA to convert the reservation into an assignment. An
application MUST NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to
it for use with one transport protocol with another transport
protocol without asking IANA to convert the reservation into an
assignment.
Section 4 describes the different port number ranges. It is Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow
previously allocated port numbers to become Unassigned, either
through de-registration or through revocation, and by a procedure
that lets application designers transfer an allocated but unused port
number to a new application. Section 8 describes these procedures,
which so far were undocumented. Port number conservation is also
improved by recommending that applications that do not require an
allocated port, e.g., because they can use service-name-based
lookups, chose this option and only register a service name.
7.3. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges
Section 6 describes the different port number ranges. It is
important to note that IANA applies slightly different procedures important to note that IANA applies slightly different procedures
when managing the different ranges of the port number registry: when managing the different ranges of the port number registry:
o Ports in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) have been o Ports in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) have been
specifically set aside for local and dynamic use and cannot be specifically set aside for local and dynamic use and cannot be
registered through IANA. Applications may simply use them for registered through IANA. Applications may simply use them for
communication without any sort of registration. On the other communication without any sort of registration. On the other
hand, applications MUST NOT assume that a specific port number in hand, applications MUST NOT assume that a specific port number in
the Dynamic Ports range will always be available for communication the Dynamic Ports range will always be available for communication
at all times, and a port number in that range hence MUST NOT be at all times, and a port number in that range hence MUST NOT be
skipping to change at page 10, line 51 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
requester to document the intended use of the port number. This requester to document the intended use of the port number. This
documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" allocation documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" allocation
procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert
review the request to determine whether to grant the registration. review the request to determine whether to grant the registration.
The submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number The submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number
in the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given in the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given
application. application.
o Ports in the Well Known Ports range (0-1023) are also available o Ports in the Well Known Ports range (0-1023) are also available
for registration through IANA. Because the Well Known Ports range for registration through IANA. Because the Well Known Ports range
is both the smallest and the most densely allocated one, the bar is both the smallest and the most densely allocated, the
for new allocations is higher than that for the Registered Ports requirements for new allocations are more strict than those for
range, and will only be granted under the "IETF Review" allocation the Registered Ports range, and will only be granted under the
procedure [RFC5226]. A request for a Well Known port number MUST "IETF Review" allocation procedure [RFC5226]. A request for a
document why using a port number from both the Registered Ports Well Known port number MUST document why using a port number from
and Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable for the given application. both the Registered Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable
for the given application.
5.3. New Principles
Several new practices stem from the conservation principle that
guides management of the port number and service name registry, and
will take effect with the approval of this document:
o IANA will allocate port numbers only to the transport protocols
explicitly named in an allocation request
o IANA will recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of
de-registration, revocation, and transfer
o IANA will begin assigning service names without requiring a
corresponding port number allocation
IANA will begin assigning protocol numbers only for those transport
protocols explicitly included in a registration request. This ends
the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number
to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is only
for one of these transport protocols. The new allocation procedure
conserves resources by only allocating a port number to an
application for those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or
DCCP) it actually uses. The port number will be marked as Reserved -
instead of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other
transport protocols. When applications start supporting the use of
some of those additional transport protocols, their implementors MUST
request IANA to convert the reservation into an assignment. An
application MUST NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to
it for use with one transport protocol with another transport
protocol without asking IANA to convert the reservation into an
assignment.
Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow
previously allocated port numbers to become Unassigned, either
through de-registration or through revocation, and by a procedure
that lets application designers transfer an allocated but unused port
number to a new application. Section 6 describes these procedures,
which so far were undocumented. Port number conservation is also
improved by recommending that applications that do not require an
allocated port, e.g., because they can use service-name-based
lookups, chose this option and only register a service name.
6. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service Name 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service Name
Registry Registry
This section describes the process for requests associated with This section describes the process for requests associated with
IANA's management of the port number and service name registry. Such IANA's management of the port number and service name registry. Such
requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use, requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use,
changes to the service name, as well as updates to the contact changes to the service name, as well as updates to the contact
information or description associated with an assignment. Revocation information or description associated with an assignment. Revocation
is initiated by IANA. is initiated by IANA.
6.1. Port Number or Service Name Registration 8.1. Port Number and Service Name Registration
Registration refers to the allocation of port numbers or service Registration refers to the allocation of port numbers or service
names to applicants. All such, registrations are made from port names to applicants. All such registrations are made from port
numbers or service names that are Unassigned or Reserved at the time numbers or service names that are Unassigned or Reserved at the time
of the allocation. Unassigned numbers and names are allocated as of the allocation. Unassigned numbers and names are allocated as
needed, and without further explanation. Reserved numbers and names needed, and without further explanation. Reserved numbers and names
are assigned only after review by IANA and the IETF, and are are assigned only after review by IANA and the IETF, and are
accompanied by a statement explaining the reason a Reserved number or accompanied by a statement explaining the reason a Reserved number or
name is appropriate for this action. name is appropriate for this action.
When a registration for one or more (but not all) transport protocols When a registration for one or more (but not all) transport protocols
is approved, the port number for the non-requested transport is approved, the port number for the non-requested transport
protocol(s) will be marked as Reserved. IANA SHOULD NOT assign that protocol(s) will be marked as Reserved. IANA SHOULD NOT assign that
skipping to change at page 12, line 42 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
numbers for other transport protocols when needed. numbers for other transport protocols when needed.
Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific
transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name
(but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all (but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all
transport protocols. transport protocols.
A port number or service name registration consists of the following A port number or service name registration consists of the following
information: information:
o Registration Owner: Name and email address of the owner of the
registration. This is REQUIRED. For registrations done through
IETF-published RFCs, the registration ownership will belong to the
IETF and not the technical contact persons.
o Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the o Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the
technical contact person for the registration. This is REQUIRED. technical contact person for the registration. This is REQUIRED.
For individuals, this is the same as the Registration Owner; for
organizations, this is a point of contact at that organization.
Additional address information MAY be provided. For registrations Additional address information MAY be provided. For registrations
done through IETF-published RFCs, one or more technical contact done through IETF-published RFCs, one or more technical contact
persons SHALL be provided. persons SHALL be provided.
o Registration Owner: Name and email address of the owner of the o Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service
registration. This is REQUIRED. For individuals, this is the associated with the registration request MUST be provided, for use
same as the registration technical contact; for organizations, in various service selection and discovery mechanisms (including,
this is a point of contact at that organization. For but not limited to, DNS SRV records [RFC2782]). Valid service
registrations done through IETF-published RFCs, the registration names MUST only contain these US-ASCII [ANSI.X3-4.1986]
ownership will belong to the IETF and not the technical contact characters: letters from A to Z, digits from 0 to 9, and hyphens
persons. ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45). They MUST be at least one
character and no more than fifteen characters long, MUST NOT begin
o Transport Protocol: The transport protocol(s) for which the port or end with a hyphen, and MUST NOT consist of only digits (in
number or service name allocation is requested MUST be provided. order to be distinguishable from port numbers, which are typically
This field is currently limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, written as all digits). In order to be unique, they MUST NOT be
and DCCP. identical to any currently registered service names in the IANA
registry [PORTREG]. Service names are case-insensitive; they may
be provided and entered into the registry with mixed case (e.g.,
for clarity), but for the purposes of comparison, the case is
ignored.
o Port Number: If assignment of port number(s) is desired, either o Port Number: If assignment of port number(s) is desired, either
the currently Unassigned port number(s) the requester suggests for the currently Unassigned port number(s) the requester suggests for
allocation or the tag "ANY" MUST be provided. If only a service allocation or the tag "ANY" MUST be provided. If only a service
name is to be assigned, this field MUST be empty. If specific name is to be assigned, this field MUST be empty. If specific
port numbers are requested, IANA is encouraged to allocate the port numbers are requested, IANA is encouraged to allocate the
suggested numbers. If the tag "ANY" is specified, IANA will suggested numbers. If the tag "ANY" is specified, IANA will
choose a suitable number from the Registered Ports range. Note choose a suitable number from the Registered Ports range. Note
that the applicant MUST NOT use the suggested ports prior to the that the applicant MUST NOT use the suggested ports prior to the
completion of the registration. completion of the registration.
o Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service o Transport Protocol: The transport protocol(s) for which the
associated with the registration request, for use in various allocation is requested MUST be provided. This field is currently
service selection and discovery mechanisms, MUST be provided. limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.
Valid service names MUST only contain these US-ASCII
[ANSI.X3-4.1986] characters: letters from A to Z, digits from 0 to
9, and hyphens ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45). They MUST be at
MOST fifteen characters long, MUST NOT begin or end with a hyphen,
and MUST NOT consist of only digits, in order to be
distinguishable from port numbers. In order to be unique, they
MUST NOT be identical to any currently registered service names in
the IANA registry [REGISTRY]. Service names are case-insensitive;
they may be provided and entered into the registry with mixed case
(e.g., for clarity), but for the purposes of comparison, the case
is ignored.
o Service Code: A desired unique service code for the service o Service Code: A desired unique service code for the service
associated with the registration request. Service codes are associated with the registration request. Service codes are
specific to the DCCP protocol [I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes]; the specific to the DCCP protocol [I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes]; the
request MUST include a desired service code when the registration request MUST include a desired service code when the registration
requests includes DCCP as a transport protocol, and MUST NOT requests includes DCCP as a transport protocol, and MUST NOT
include one otherwise. include one otherwise.
o Description: A short description of the service associated with o Description: A short description of the service associated with
the registration request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the the registration request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 16, line 15
unsuitable for the given application. For registration requests unsuitable for the given application. For registration requests
for Well Known Ports, this documentation MUST explain why a port for Well Known Ports, this documentation MUST explain why a port
number in the Registered Ports or Dynamic Ports ranges is number in the Registered Ports or Dynamic Ports ranges is
unsuitable. unsuitable.
"Early" registration requests can be made by IETF working groups "Early" registration requests can be made by IETF working groups
without including such a reference document, although it is without including such a reference document, although it is
RECOMMENDED that at least a reference to an Internet Draft RECOMMENDED that at least a reference to an Internet Draft
describing the work in progress is provided. describing the work in progress is provided.
6.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration When IANA receives a registration request containing the above
information, they SHALL initiate an "Expert Review" [RFC5226] in
order to determine whether an assignment should be made. For
requests for service names that do not include port number
assignments, IANA MAY, at its discretion, skip the "Expert Review"
procedure and assign the service name under a simple "First Come
First Served" policy [RFC5226].
8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration
The original requesters of a granted port number assignment can The original requesters of a granted port number assignment can
return the port number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a return the port number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a
need for it. The port number will be de-registered and will be need for it. The port number will be de-registered and will be
marked as Reserved. IANA should not re-assign port numbers that have marked as Reserved. IANA should not re-assign port numbers that have
been de-registered until all other available port numbers in the been de-registered until all other available port numbers in the
specific range have been assigned. specific range have been assigned.
Before proceeding with a port number de-registration, IANA needs to Before proceeding with a port number de-registration, IANA needs to
reasonably establish that the value is actually no longer in use. reasonably establish that the value is actually no longer in use.
Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that a space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that a
given service name remain assigned even after all associated port given service name remain assigned even after all associated port
number assignments have become de-registered. It will afterwards number assignments have become de-registered. Under this policy, it
appear in the registry as if it had been created through a service will appear in the registry as if it had been created through a
name registration request that did not include any port numbers. service name registration request that did not include any port
numbers.
On rare occasions, it may still be useful to de-register a service On rare occasions, it may still be useful to de-register a service
name. In such cases, IANA will mark the service name as Reserved. name. In such cases, IANA will mark the service name as Reserved.
IANA will involve their IESG-appointed expert in such cases.
6.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use 8.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use
If the original requesters of a granted port number assignment no If the original requesters of a granted port number assignment no
longer have a need for the registered number, but would like to re- longer have a need for the registered number, but would like to re-
use it for a different application, they can submit a request to IANA use it for a different application, they can submit a request to IANA
to do so. to do so.
Logically, port number re-use is to be thought of as a de- Logically, port number re-use is to be thought of as a de-
registration (Section 6.2) followed by an immediate re-registration registration (Section 8.2) followed by an immediate re-registration
(Section 6.1) of the same port number for a new application. (Section 8.1) of the same port number for a new application.
Consequently, the information that needs to be provided about the Consequently, the information that needs to be provided about the
proposed new use of the port number is identical to what would need proposed new use of the port number is identical to what would need
to be provided for a new port number allocation for the specific to be provided for a new port number allocation for the specific
ports range. ports range.
Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that the space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that the
original service name associated with the prior use of the port original service name associated with the prior use of the port
number remains assigned, and a new service be created and associated number remains assigned, and a new service be created and associated
with the port number. This is again consistent with viewing a re-use with the port number. This is again consistent with viewing a re-use
skipping to change at page 15, line 22 skipping to change at page 17, line 31
application is NOT RECOMMENDED. application is NOT RECOMMENDED.
IANA needs to carefully review such requests before approving them. IANA needs to carefully review such requests before approving them.
In some instances, the Expert Reviewer will determine that the In some instances, the Expert Reviewer will determine that the
application that the port number was assigned to has found usage application that the port number was assigned to has found usage
beyond the original requester, or that there is a concern that it may beyond the original requester, or that there is a concern that it may
have such users. This determination MUST be made quickly. A have such users. This determination MUST be made quickly. A
community call concerning revocation of a port number (see below) MAY community call concerning revocation of a port number (see below) MAY
be considered, if a broader use of the port number is suspected. be considered, if a broader use of the port number is suspected.
6.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation 8.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation
A port number revocation can be thought of as an IANA-initiated de- A port number revocation can be thought of as an IANA-initiated de-
registration (Section 6.2), and has exactly the same effect on the registration (Section 8.2), and has exactly the same effect on the
registry. registry.
Sometimes, it will be clear that a specific port number is no longer Sometimes, it will be clear that a specific port number is no longer
in use and that IANA can revoke it and mark it as Reserved. At other in use and that IANA can revoke it and mark it as Reserved. At other
times, it may be unclear whether a given assigned port number is times, it may be unclear whether a given assigned port number is
still in use somewhere in the Internet. In those cases, IANA must still in use somewhere in the Internet. In those cases, IANA must
carefully consider the consequences of revoking the port number, and carefully consider the consequences of revoking the port number, and
SHOULD only do so if there is an overwhelming need. SHOULD only do so if there is an overwhelming need.
With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL
skipping to change at page 15, line 48 skipping to change at page 18, line 9
with the Expert Reviewer's support, SHALL determine promptly after with the Expert Reviewer's support, SHALL determine promptly after
the end of the community call whether revocation should proceed and the end of the community call whether revocation should proceed and
then communicate their decision to the community. This procedure then communicate their decision to the community. This procedure
typically involves similar steps to de-registration except that it is typically involves similar steps to de-registration except that it is
initiated by IANA. initiated by IANA.
Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
space compared to the port number space, revoking service names is space compared to the port number space, revoking service names is
NOT RECOMMENDED. NOT RECOMMENDED.
6.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers 8.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers
The value of port numbers and service names is defined by their The value of port numbers and service names is defined by their
careful management as a shared Internet resource, whereas enabling careful management as a shared Internet resource, whereas enabling
transfer allows the potential for associated monetary exchanges. As transfer allows the potential for associated monetary exchanges. As
a result, current IANA procedures do not permit port number or a result, the IETF does not permit port number or service name
service name assignments to be transferred between parties, even when assignments to be transferred between parties, even when they are
they are mutually consenting. mutually consenting.
The appropriate alternate procedure is a coordinated de-registration The appropriate alternate procedure is a coordinated de-registration
and registration: The new party requests the port number or service and registration: The new party requests the port number or service
name via a registration and the previous party releases its name via a registration and the previous party releases its
assignment via the de-registration procedure outlined above. assignment via the de-registration procedure outlined above.
With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL
carefully determine if there is a valid technical, operational or carefully determine if there is a valid technical, operational or
managerial reason before performing the transfer. managerial reason before performing the transfer.
6.6. Maintenance Issues 8.6. Maintenance Issues
The previous procedures help IANA manage the defining properties of The previous procedures help IANA manage the defining properties of
the port name and service name registry. There are additional the port name and service name registry. There are additional
procedures which are administrative and help IANA maintain non- procedures which are administrative and help IANA maintain non-
defining information in a registration. This includes changes to the defining information in a registration. This includes changes to the
Port Description and changes to contact information. These changes Port Description and changes to Technical Contact information. (Note
are coordinated by IANA in an informal manner, and may be initiated that Registration Owner cannot be changed; see Section 8.5 above.)
by either the registrant or by IANA, e.g., the latter when requesting These changes are coordinated by IANA in an informal manner, and may
an update to current contact information. be initiated by either the registrant or by IANA, e.g., the latter
when requesting an update to current contact information.
7. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The IANA guidelines described in this document do not change the The IANA guidelines described in this document do not change the
security properties of either TCP, SCTP, DCCP or UDP. security properties of UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP.
Assignment of a port number or service name does not in any way imply Assignment of a port number or service name does not in any way imply
an endorsement of an application or product, and the fact that an endorsement of an application or product, and the fact that
network traffic is flowing to or from a registered port number does network traffic is flowing to or from a registered port number does
not mean that it is "good" traffic, or even that it is used by the not mean that it is "good" traffic, or even that it is used by the
assigned service. Firewall and system administrators should choose assigned service. Firewall and system administrators should choose
how to configure their systems based on their knowledge of the how to configure their systems based on their knowledge of the
traffic in question, not whether there is a port number or service traffic in question, not whether there is a port number or service
name registered or not. name registered or not.
8. IANA Considerations Services are expected to include support for security, either as
default or dynamically negotiated in-band. The use of separate port
number or service name assignments for secure and insecure variants
of the same service is to be avoided in order to discourage the
deployment of insecure services.
This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of [RFC2780]. Upon 10. IANA Considerations
approval of this document, IANA is requested to adopt the procedures
described herein.
8.1. Service Name Consistency This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of the March 2000 IANA
Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].
Section 6.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to contact the
maintainer of the [SRVREG] registry, in order to merge the contents
of that private registry into the official IANA registry. It is
expected that the contents of [SRVREG] will at that time be replaced
with pointers to the IANA registry and to this RFC.
Similarly, IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in
the port number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the "Protocol and
Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not already have one
assigned. After that, IANA should investigate if the "Protocol and
Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] can be retired.
10.1. Service Name Consistency
Section 8.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service
names, which until now had not been clearly defined. The definition names, which until now had not been clearly defined. The definition
on Section 6.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service in Section 8.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service
names with various service discovery mechanisms. names with current and future service discovery mechanisms.
Unfortunately, the current port number registry [REGISTRY] contains a As of August 5, 2009 approximately 98% of the so-called "Short Names"
few assigned service names that do not conform to the new naming from existing port number registrations [PORTREG] meet the rules for
rules. In all cases, this is because they contain illegal characters legal service names stated in Section 8.1, and hence will be used
such as asterisks, dots, plusses, slashes, or underscores. (All unmodified.
current service names conform to the length requirement of 15
characters or less.)
Upon approval of this document, IANA SHALL take immediate actions to The remaining approximately 2% of the exiting "Short Names" are not
resolve these inconsistencies. For any registry assignment with an suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because
illegal service name, IANA SHALL add an alias to the registry that they contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, plusses,
assigns a well-formed service name for the existing service but slashes, or underscores. All existing "Short Names" conform to the
otherwise duplicates the original assignment information. It is length requirement of 15 characters or less. For these unsuitable
desirable if the alias closely resembles the original service name, "Short Names", listed in the table below, the service name will be
e.g., by remapping underscores to dashes, etc. In the description the Short Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens. IANA
field of the new alias, IANA SHALL record that it assigns a well- SHALL add an alias to the registry that assigns a well-formed service
formed service name for the previous service and point to the name for the existing service but otherwise duplicates the original
original assignment. In the description field of the original assignment information. In the description field of the new alias,
assignment, IANA SHALL add a note that the service name is historic, IANA SHALL record that it assigns a well-formed service name for the
is not usable with many common service discovery mechanisms, and previous service and point to the original assignment. In the
provide a reference to the new alias, which can be used in this way. description field of the original assignment, IANA SHALL add a note
that the service name is historic, is not usable with many common
service discovery mechanisms, and provide a reference to the new
alias, which can be used in this way.
As of 2009-8-5 [REGISTRY], these service names were illegal under the Names containing illegal characters to be replaced by hyphens:
rules stated in Section 6.1:
+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+ +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 914c/g | EtherNet/IP-1 | EtherNet/IP-2 | | 914c/g | acmaint_dbd | acmaint_transd |
| LiebDevMgmt_A | LiebDevMgmt_C | LiebDevMgmt_DM | | atex_elmd | avanti_cdp | badm_priv |
| acmaint_dbd | acmaint_transd | atex_elmd | | badm_pub | bdir_priv | bdir_pub |
| avanti_cdp | badm_priv | badm_pub | | bmc_ctd_ldap | bmc_patroldb | boks_clntd |
| bdir_priv | bdir_pub | bmc_ctd_ldap | | boks_servc | boks_servm | broker_service |
| bmc_patroldb | boks_clntd | boks_servc | | bues_service | canit_store | cedros_fds |
| boks_servm | broker_service | bues_service | | cl/1 | contamac_icm | corel_vncadmin |
| canit_store | cedros_fds | cl/1 | | csc_proxy | cvc_hostd | dbcontrol_agent |
| contamac_icm | corel_vncadmin | csc_proxy | | dec_dlm | dl_agent | documentum_s |
| cvc_hostd | dbcontrol_agent | dec_dlm | | dsmeter_iatc | dsx_monitor | elpro_tunnel |
| dl_agent | documentum_s | dsmeter_iatc | | elvin_client | elvin_server | encrypted_admin |
| dsx_monitor | elpro_tunnel | elvin_client | | erunbook_agent | erunbook_server | esri_sde |
| elvin_server | encrypted_admin | erunbook_agent | | EtherNet/IP-1 | EtherNet/IP-2 | event_listener |
| erunbook_server | esri_sde | event_listener | | flr_agent | gds_db | ibm_wrless_lan |
| flr_agent | gds_db | ibm_wrless_lan | | iceedcp_rx | iceedcp_tx | iclcnet_svinfo |
| iceedcp_rx | iceedcp_tx | iclcnet_svinfo | | idig_mux | ife_icorp | instl_bootc |
| idig_mux | ife_icorp | instl_bootc | | instl_boots | intel_rci | interhdl_elmd |
| instl_boots | intel_rci | interhdl_elmd | | lan900_remote | LiebDevMgmt_A | LiebDevMgmt_C |
| lan900_remote | mapper-ws_ethd | matrix_vnet | | LiebDevMgmt_DM | mapper-ws_ethd | matrix_vnet |
| mdbs_daemon | menandmice_noh | msl_lmd | | mdbs_daemon | menandmice_noh | msl_lmd |
| nburn_id | ncr_ccl | nds_sso | | nburn_id | ncr_ccl | nds_sso |
| netmap_lm | nms_topo_serv | notify_srvr | | netmap_lm | nms_topo_serv | notify_srvr |
| novell-lu6.2 | nuts_bootp | nuts_dem | | novell-lu6.2 | nuts_bootp | nuts_dem |
| ocs_amu | ocs_cmu | pipe_server | | ocs_amu | ocs_cmu | pipe_server |
| pra_elmd | printer_agent | redstorm_diag | | pra_elmd | printer_agent | redstorm_diag |
| redstorm_find | redstorm_info | redstorm_join | | redstorm_find | redstorm_info | redstorm_join |
| resource_mgr | rmonitor_secure | rsvp_tunnel | | resource_mgr | rmonitor_secure | rsvp_tunnel |
| sai_sentlm | sge_execd | sge_qmaster | | sai_sentlm | sge_execd | sge_qmaster |
| shiva_confsrvr | srvc_registry | stm_pproc | | shiva_confsrvr | sql*net | srvc_registry |
| subntbcst_tftp | udt_os | universe_suite | | stm_pproc | subntbcst_tftp | udt_os |
| veritas_pbx | vision_elmd | vision_server | | universe_suite | veritas_pbx | vision_elmd |
| whois++ | wrs_registry | z39.50 | | vision_server | wrs_registry | z39.50 |
+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+ +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
8.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation In the case of "whois++", the service name will be "whoisplusplus".
Two Well Known ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved for 10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation
experimentation UDP and TCP [RFC4727]. This document registers the
same port numbers for SCTP and DCCP, and also instructs IANA to Two Well Known UDP and TCP ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved
for experimental use [RFC4727]. This document registers the same
port numbers for SCTP and DCCP, and also instructs IANA to
automatically register these two port numbers for any new transport automatically register these two port numbers for any new transport
protocol that will in the future share the port number namespace. protocol that will in the future share the port number namespace.
Note that these port numbers are meant for temporary experimentation Note that these port numbers are meant for temporary experimentation
and development in controlled environments. Before using these port and development in controlled environments. Before using these port
numbers, carefully consider the advice in Section 4.1 in this numbers, carefully consider the advice in Section 6.1 in this
document, as well as in Sections 1 and 1.1 of [RFC3692]. Most document, as well as in Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental
importantly, application developers must request a permanent port and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692]. Most importantly,
number assignment from IANA as described in Section 6.1 before any application developers must request a permanent port number
kind of non-experimental deployment. assignment from IANA as described in Section 8.1 before any kind of
non-experimental deployment.
+--------------------------------+----------------------------+ +--------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Registration Technical Contact | IESG <iesg@ietf.org> | | Registration Technical Contact | IESG <iesg@ietf.org> |
| Registration Owner | IETF <iesg@ietf.org> | | Registration Owner | IETF <iesg@ietf.org> |
| Transport Protocol | SCTP, DCCP | | Transport Protocol | SCTP, DCCP |
| Port Number | 1021 | | Port Number | 1021 |
| Port Name | RFC3692-style Experiment 1 | | Port Name | RFC3692-style Experiment 1 |
| Service Name | exp1 | | Service Name | exp1 |
| Reference | [RFCyyyy] | | Reference | [RFCyyyy] |
+--------------------------------+----------------------------+ +--------------------------------+----------------------------+
skipping to change at page 19, line 30 skipping to change at page 21, line 40
| Transport Protocol | SCTP, DCCP | | Transport Protocol | SCTP, DCCP |
| Port Number | 1022 | | Port Number | 1022 |
| Port Name | RFC3692-style Experiment 2 | | Port Name | RFC3692-style Experiment 2 |
| Service Name | exp2 | | Service Name | exp2 |
| Reference | [RFCyyyy] | | Reference | [RFCyyyy] |
+--------------------------------+----------------------------+ +--------------------------------+----------------------------+
[RFC Editor Note: Please change "yyyy" to the RFC number allocated to [RFC Editor Note: Please change "yyyy" to the RFC number allocated to
this document before publication.] this document before publication.]
8.3. Updates to DCCP Registries 10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries
This document updates the IANA allocation procedures for the DCCP This document updates the IANA allocation procedures for the DCCP
Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries as defined in Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries [RFC4340].
[RFC4340].
8.3.1. DCCP Service Code Registry 10.3.1. DCCP Service Code Registry
Service Codes are allocated first-come-first-served according to Service Codes are allocated first-come-first-served according to
Section 19.8 of [RFC4340]. This document updates Section 19.8 of Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification [RFC4340]. This document
[RFC4340] by extending the guidelines given there in the following updates that section by extending the guidelines given there in the
ways: following ways:
o IANA MAY assign new Service Codes without seeking Expert Review o IANA MAY assign new Service Codes without seeking Expert Review
using their discretion, but SHOULD seek expert review when a using their discretion, but SHOULD seek expert review if a request
request seeks an appreciable number of Service Codes (e.g., more seeks more than five Service Codes.
than five).
o IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer with o IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer with
questions on any registry, regardless of the registry policy, for questions on any registry, regardless of the registry policy, for
clarification or if there is a problem with a request [RFC4340]. clarification or if there is a problem with a request [RFC4340].
8.3.2. DCCP Port Numbers Registry 10.3.2. DCCP Port Numbers Registry
The DCCP ports registry is defined by [RFC4340] in Section 19.9. The DCCP ports registry is defined by Section 19.9 of the DCCP
Allocations in this registry require prior allocation of a Service specification [RFC4340]. Allocations in this registry require prior
Code. Not all Service Codes require IANA-registered ports. This allocation of a Service Code. Not all Service Codes require IANA-
document updates Section 19.9 of [RFC4340] by extending the registered ports. This document updates that section by extending
guidelines given there in the following way: the guidelines given there in the following way:
o IANA should normally assign a value in the range 1024-49151 to a o IANA should normally assign a value in the range 1024-49151 to a
DCCP server port. IANA allocation requests to allocate port DCCP server port. IANA allocation requests to allocate port
numbers in the Well Known Ports range (0 through 1023), require an numbers in the Well Known Ports range (0 through 1023), require an
"IETF Review" [RFC5226] prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340]. "IETF Review" [RFC5226] prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340].
Section 19.9 of [RFC4340] requires each DCCP server port assignment
to be associated with at least one Service Code value. This document
updates [RFC4340] in the following way:
o IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than o IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than
one DCCP server port. one DCCP server port.
o The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server port o The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server port
should be recorded in the ports registry. should be recorded in the ports registry.
o A request for additional Service Codes to be associated with an o A request for additional Service Codes to be associated with an
already allocated Port Number requires Expert Review. These already allocated Port Number requires Expert Review. These
requests will normally be accepted when they originate from the requests will normally be accepted when they originate from the
contact associated with the port registration. In other cases, contact associated with the port registration. In other cases,
these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port, these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port,
when this is available. when this is available.
[RFC4340] notes that a short port name MUST be associated with each The DCCP specification [RFC4340] notes that a short port name MUST be
DCCP server port that has been registered. This document requires associated with each DCCP server port that has been registered. This
that this name MUST be unique. document requires that this name MUST be unique.
9. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
The text in Section 8.3 is based on a suggestion by Tom Phelan. The text in Section 10.3 is based on a suggestion by Tom Phelan.
Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project [TRILOGY], a
supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework research project supported by the European Commission under its
Program. Seventh Framework Program.
10. References 12. References
10.1. Normative References
12.1. Normative References
[ANSI.X3-4.1986] [ANSI.X3-4.1986]
American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986. Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
skipping to change at page 21, line 42 skipping to change at page 23, line 45
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
10.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd]
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05 (work in Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05 (work in
progress), September 2008. progress), September 2008.
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-07 (work in progress), draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.
September 2008.
[I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes] [I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes]
Fairhurst, G., "The DCCP Service Code", Fairhurst, G., "The DCCP Service Code",
draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-11 (work in progress), draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-11 (work in progress),
May 2009. May 2009.
[REGISTRY] [I-D.touch-tcp-portnames]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Port Touch, J., "A TCP Option for Port Names",
Numbers", http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00 (work in progress),
April 2006.
[PORTREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Port Numbers
Registry", http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.
[PROTSERVREG]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Protocol and
Service Names Registry",
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names.
[RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet
host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985.
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", [RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)",
RFC 1078, November 1988. RFC 1078, November 1988.
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
October 1994.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000. February 2000.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for [RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
March 2006. March 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007. RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for [RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for
the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008. the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008.
[SRVTYPE] "DNS SRV (RFC 2782) Service Types", [SRVREG] "DNS SRV Service Types Registry",
http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html. http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html.
[SYSFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application [SYSFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
for System (Well Known) Port Number", for System (Well Known) Port Number",
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl. http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl.
[TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/. [TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/.
[UPnP] UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) V 1.0",
November 2001.
[USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application [USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
for User (Registered) Port Number", for User (Registered) Port Number",
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl. http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Michelle Cotton Michelle Cotton
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
 End of changes. 92 change blocks. 
370 lines changed or deleted 509 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37a. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/