draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10.txt   rfc6335.txt 
Transport Area Working Group M. Cotton Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Cotton
Internet-Draft ICANN Request for Comments: 6335 ICANN
Updates: 2780, 2782, 3828, 4340, L. Eggert BCP: 165 L. Eggert
4960, 5595 (if approved) Nokia Updates: 2780, 2782, 3828, 4340, 4960, 5595 Nokia
Intended status: BCP J. Touch Category: Best Current Practice J. Touch
Expires: August 16, 2011 USC/ISI ISSN: 2070-1721 USC/ISI
M. Westerlund M. Westerlund
Ericsson Ericsson
S. Cheshire S. Cheshire
Apple Apple
February 12, 2011 August 2011
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management
of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10
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 assignment and other Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling assignment and other
requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port
Number Registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles Number registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles
behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term
sustainability of the registry. sustainability of the registry.
This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting the previous This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting the previous
UDP and TCP port assignment procedures defined in Sections 8 and 9.1 UDP and TCP port assignment procedures defined in Sections 8 and 9.1
of the IANA allocation guidelines [RFC2780], and it updates the IANA of the IANA Allocation Guidelines, and it updates the IANA service
Service Name and Port assignment procedures for UDP-Lite [RFC3828], name and port assignment procedures for UDP-Lite, the Datagram
DCCP [RFC4340] [RFC5595] and SCTP [RFC4960]. It also updates the DNS Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), and the Stream Control
SRV specification [RFC2782] to clarify what a service name is and how Transmission Protocol (SCTP). It also updates the DNS SRV
it is registered. specification to clarify what a service name is and how it is
registered.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Service Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Service Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Service Name Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Service Name Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Service names and Port Numbers for Experimentation . . . . 12 6.1. Service Names and Port Numbers for Experimentation . . . . 12
7. Principles for Service Name and Transport Protocol Port 7. Principles for Service Name and Transport Protocol Port
Number Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Number Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Past Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Past Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Updated Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Updated Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Service Name and 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Transport Protocol Port Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Service Name and Port Number Assignment . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Service Name and Port Number Assignment . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Service Name and Port Number De-Assignment . . . . . . . . 20 8.2. Service Name and Port Number De-Assignment . . . . . . . . 21
8.3. Service Name and Port Number Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8.3. Service Name and Port Number Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.4. Service Name and Port Number Revocation . . . . . . . . . 21 8.4. Service Name and Port Number Revocation . . . . . . . . . 22
8.5. Service Name and Port Number Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.5. Service Name and Port Number Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.6. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.6. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.7. Disagreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.7. Disagreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 25 10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 26
10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
For many years, the assignment of new service names and port number For many years, the assignment of new service names and port number
values for use with the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] values for use with the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793]
and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] have had less than and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] has had less than
clear guidelines. New transport protocols have been added - the clear guidelines. New transport protocols have been added -- the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342] - and new Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342] -- and new
mechanisms like DNS SRV records [RFC2782] have been developed, each mechanisms like DNS SRV records [RFC2782] have been developed, each
with separate registries and separate guidelines. The community also with separate registries and separate guidelines. The community also
recognized the need for additional procedures beyond just assignment; recognized the need for additional procedures beyond just assignment;
notably modification, revocation, and release. notably modification, revocation, and release.
A key element of the procedural streamlining specified in this A key element of the procedural streamlining specified in this
document is to establish identical assignment procedures for all IETF document is to establish identical assignment procedures for all IETF
transport protocols. This document brings the IANA procedures for transport protocols. This document brings the IANA procedures for
TCP and UDP in line with those for SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a TCP and UDP in line with those for SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a
single process that requesters and IANA follow for all requests for single process that requesters and IANA follow for all requests for
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
these procedures and processes that requesters and IANA follow for these procedures and processes that requesters and IANA follow for
all requests for all current and future transport protocols. all requests for all current and future transport protocols.
IANA is the authority for assigning service names and port numbers. IANA is the authority for assigning service names and port numbers.
The registries that are created to store these assignments are The registries that are created to store these assignments are
maintained by IANA. For protocols developed by IETF working groups, maintained by IANA. For protocols developed by IETF working groups,
IANA now also offers a method for the "early assignment" [RFC4020] of IANA now also offers a method for the "early assignment" [RFC4020] of
service names and port numbers, as described in Section 8.1. service names and port numbers, as described in Section 8.1.
This document updates IANA's procedures for UDP and TCP port numbers This document updates IANA's procedures for UDP and TCP port numbers
by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of the IANA assignment guidelines by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of the IANA Allocation Guidelines
[RFC2780]. (Note that other sections of the IANA assignment [RFC2780]. (Note that other sections of the IANA Allocation
guidelines, relating to the protocol field values in IPv4 headers, Guidelines, relating to the protocol field values in IPv4 headers,
were also updated in February 2008 [RFC5237].) This document also were also updated in February 2008 [RFC5237].) This document also
updates the IANA assignment procedures for DCCP [RFC4340] updates the IANA assignment procedures for DCCP [RFC4340] [RFC5595]
[RFC5595]and SCTP [RFC4960]. and SCTP [RFC4960].
The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) shares the port The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) shares the port
space with UDP. The UDP-Lite specification [RFC3828] says: "UDP-Lite space with UDP. The UDP-Lite specification [RFC3828] says: "UDP-Lite
uses the same set of port number values assigned by the IANA for use uses the same set of port number values assigned by the IANA for use
by UDP". An update of the UDP procedures therefore also results in a by UDP". An update of the UDP procedures therefore also results in a
corresponding update of the UDP-Lite procedures. corresponding update of the UDP-Lite procedures.
This document also clarifies what a service name is and how it is This document also clarifies what a service name is and how it is
assigned. This will impact the DNS SRV specification [RFC2782], assigned. This will impact the DNS SRV specification [RFC2782],
because that specification merely makes a brief mention that the because that specification merely makes a brief mention that the
symbolic names of services are defined in "Assigned Numbers" symbolic names of services are defined in "Assigned Numbers"
[RFC1700], without stating to which section it refers within that [RFC1700], without stating to which section it refers within that
230-page document. The DNS SRV specification may have been referring 230-page document. The DNS SRV specification may have been referring
to the list of Port Assignments (known as /etc/services on Unix), or to the list of Port Assignments (known as /etc/services on Unix), or
to the "Protocol And Service Names" section, or to both, or to some to the "Protocol And Service Names" section, or to both, or to some
other section. Furthermore, "Assigned Numbers" [RFC1700] has been other section. Furthermore, "Assigned Numbers" [RFC1700] has been
obsoleted [RFC3232] and has been replaced by on-line registries obsoleted [RFC3232] and has been replaced by on-line registries
[PORTREG][PROTSERVREG]. [PORTREG] [PROTSERVREG].
The development of new transport protocols is a major effort that the The development of new transport protocols is a major effort that the
IETF does not undertake very often. If a new transport protocol is IETF does not undertake very often. If a new transport protocol is
standardized in the future, it is expected to follow these guidelines standardized in the future, it is expected to follow these guidelines
and practices around using service names and port numbers as much as and practices around using service names and port numbers as much as
possible, for consistency. possible, for consistency.
At the time of writing of this document, the internal procedures of
"Expert Review" teams, including that of IANA's port review team, are
not documented in any RFC and this document doesn't change that.
2. Motivation 2. Motivation
Information about the assignment procedures for the port registry has Information about the assignment procedures for the port registry has
existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number
assignments on the IANA web site [SYSFORM][USRFORM], an introductory assignments on the IANA web site [SYSFORM] [USRFORM], an introductory
text section in the file listing the port number assignments text section in the file listing the port number assignments
themselves (known as the port numbers registry) [PORTREG], and two themselves (known as the port numbers registry) [PORTREG], and two
brief sections of the IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780]. brief sections of the IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].
Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been
historically unclear. Service names were originally created as historically unclear. Service names were originally created as
mnemonic identifiers for port numbers without a well-defined syntax, mnemonic identifiers for port numbers without a well-defined syntax,
apart from the 14-character limit mentioned on the IANA website apart from the 14-character limit mentioned on the IANA website
[SYSFORM][USRFORM]. Even that length limit has not been consistently [SYSFORM] [USRFORM]. Even that length limit has not been
applied, and some assigned service names are 15 characters long. consistently applied, and some assigned service names are 15
When service identification via DNS SRV Resource Records (RRs) was characters long. When service identification via DNS SRV Resource
introduced [RFC2782], it became useful to start assigning service Records (RRs) was introduced [RFC2782], it became useful to start
names alone, and because IANA had no procedure for assigning a assigning service names alone, and because IANA had no procedure for
service name without an associated port number, this lead to the assigning a service name without an associated port number, this led
creation of an informal temporary service name registry outside of to the creation of an informal temporary service name registry
the control of IANA, which now contains roughly 500 service names outside of the control of IANA, which now contains roughly 500
[SRVREG]. service names [SRVREG].
This document aggregates all this scattered information into a single This document aggregates all this scattered information into a single
reference that aligns and clearly defines the management procedures reference that aligns and clearly defines the management procedures
for both service names and port numbers. It gives more detailed for both service names and port numbers. It gives more detailed
guidance to prospective requesters of service names and ports than guidance to prospective requesters of service names and ports than
the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures
for the management of the registry, so that requests can be completed for the management of the registry, so that requests can be completed
in a timely manner. in a timely manner.
This document defines rules for assignment of service names without This document defines rules for assignment of service names without
associated port numbers, for such usages as DNS SRV records associated port numbers, for such usages as DNS SRV records
[RFC2782], which was not possible under the previous IANA procedures. [RFC2782], which was not possible under the previous IANA procedures.
The document also merges service name assignments from the non-IANA The document also merges service name assignments from the non-IANA
ad hoc registry [SRVREG] and from the IANA "Protocol and Service ad hoc registry [SRVREG] and from the IANA Protocol and Service Names
Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] into the IANA "Service Name and registry [PROTSERVREG] into the IANA Service Name and Transport
Transport Protocol Port Number" registry [PORTREG], which from here Protocol Port Number registry [PORTREG], which from here on is the
on is the single authoritative registry for service names and port single authoritative registry for service names and port numbers.
numbers.
An additional purpose of this document is to describe the principles 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 that guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint
stewards of the service name and port number registry. TCP and UDP stewards of the service name and port number registry. TCP and UDP
have had remarkable success over the last decades. Thousands of have had remarkable success over the last decades. Thousands of
applications and application-level protocols have service names and applications and application-level protocols have service names and
port numbers assigned for their use, and there is every reason to port numbers assigned for their use, and there is every reason to
believe that this trend will continue into the future. It is hence believe that this trend will continue into the future. It is hence
extremely important that management of the registry follow principles extremely important that management of the registry follow principles
that ensure its long-term usefulness as a shared resource. Section 7 that ensure its long-term usefulness as a shared resource. Section 7
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
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 relied on 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 may also identify the application protocol and associated they may also identify the application protocol and associated
service to which processes connect. Newer transport protocols, such service to which processes connect. Newer transport protocols, such
as the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the as the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342] have also Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342], have also
adopted the concept of ports for their communication sessions and use adopted the concept of ports for their communication sessions and use
16-bit port numbers in the same way as TCP and UDP (and UDP-Lite 16-bit port numbers in the same way as TCP and UDP (and UDP-Lite
[RFC3828], a variant of UDP). [RFC3828], a variant of 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 associated service names such as Port numbers are also known by their associated service names such as
"telnet" for port number 23 and "http" (as well as "www" and "www- "telnet" for port number 23 and "http" (as well as "www" and
http") for port number 80. "www-http") for port number 80.
Hosts running services, hosts accessing services on other hosts, and All involved parties -- hosts running services, hosts accessing
intermediate devices (such as firewalls and NATs) that restrict services on other hosts, and intermediate devices (such as firewalls
services need to agree on which service corresponds to a particular and NATs) that restrict services -- need to agree on which service
destination port. Although this is ultimately a local decision with corresponds to a particular destination port. Although this is
meaning only between the endpoints of a connection, it is common for ultimately a local decision with meaning only between the endpoints
many services to have a default port upon which those servers usually of a connection, it is common for many services to have a default
listen, when possible, and these ports are recorded by the Internet port upon which those servers usually listen, when possible, and
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) through the service name and port these ports are recorded by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
number registry [PORTREG]. (IANA) through the service name and port number registry [PORTREG].
Over time, the assumption that a particular port number necessarily Over time, the assumption that a particular port number necessarily
implies a particular service may become less true. For example, implies a particular service may become less true. For example,
multiple instances of the same service on the same host cannot multiple instances of the same service on the same host cannot
generally listen on the same port, and multiple hosts behind the same generally listen on the same port, and multiple hosts behind the same
NAT gateway cannot all have a mapping for the same port on the NAT gateway cannot all have a mapping for the same port on the
external side of the NAT gateway, whether using static port mappings external side of the NAT gateway, whether using static port mappings
configured by hand by the user, or dynamic port mappings configured configured by hand by the user, or dynamic port mappings configured
automatically using a port mapping protocol like NAT Port Mapping automatically using a port mapping protocol like the NAT Port Mapping
Protocol (NAT-PMP) [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] or Internet Gateway Device Protocol [NAT-PMP] or Internet Gateway Device [IGD].
(IGD) [IGD].
Applications may use port numbers directly, look up port numbers Applications may use port numbers directly, look up port numbers
based on service names via system calls such as getservbyname() on based on service names via system calls such as getservbyname() on
UNIX, look up port numbers by performing queries for DNS SRV records UNIX, look up port numbers by performing queries for DNS SRV records
[RFC2782][I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd], or determine port numbers in a [RFC2782] [DNS-SD], or determine port numbers in a variety of other
variety of other ways like the TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX) ways like the TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX) [RFC1078].
[RFC1078].
Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply
to IANA for an assigned service name and port number for a specific to IANA for an assigned service name and port number for a specific
application, and may - after assignment - assume that no other application, and may -- after assignment -- assume that no other
application will use that service name or port number for its application will use that service name or port number for its
communication sessions. Application designers also have the option communication sessions. Application designers also have the option
of requesting only an assigned service name without a corresponding of requesting only an assigned service name without a corresponding
fixed port number if their application does not require one, such as fixed port number if their application does not require one, such as
applications that use DNS SRV records to look up port numbers applications that use DNS SRV records to look up port numbers
dynamically at runtime. Because the port number space is finite (and dynamically at run-time. Because the port number space is finite
therefore conservation is an important goal) the alternative of using (and therefore conservation is an important goal), the alternative of
service names instead of port numbers is RECOMMENDED whenever using service names instead of port numbers is RECOMMENDED whenever
possible. possible.
4. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119]. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].
This document uses the term "assignment" to refer to the procedure by This document uses the term "assignment" to refer to the procedure by
which IANA provides service names and/or port numbers to requesting which IANA provides service names and/or port numbers to requesting
parties; other RFCs refer to this as "allocation" or "registration". parties; other RFCs refer to this as "allocation" or "registration".
This document assumes that all these terms have the same meaning, and This document assumes that all these terms have the same meaning, and
will use terms other than "assignment" when quoting from or referring will use terms other than "assignment" only when quoting from or
to text in these other documents. referring to text in these other documents.
5. Service Names 5. Service Names
Service names are the unique key in the Service Name and Transport Service names are the unique key in the Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number Registry. This unique symbolic name for a Protocol Port Number registry. This unique symbolic name for a
service may also be used for other purposes, such as in DNS SRV service may also be used for other purposes, such as in DNS SRV
records [RFC2782]. Within the registry, this unique key ensures that records [RFC2782]. Within the registry, this unique key ensures that
different services can be unambiguously distinguished, thus different services can be unambiguously distinguished, thus
preventing name collisions and avoiding confusion about who is the preventing name collisions and avoiding confusion about who is the
Assignee for a particular entry. Assignee for a particular entry.
There may be more than one service name associated with a particular There may be more than one service name associated with a particular
transport protocol and port. There are three ways that such port transport protocol and port. There are three ways that such port
number overloading can occur: number overloading can occur:
o Overloading occurs when one service is an extension of another o Overloading occurs when one service is an extension of another
service, and an in-band mechanism exists for determining if the service, and an in-band mechanism exists for determining if the
extension is present or not. One example is port 3478, which has extension is present or not. One example is port 3478, which has
the service name aliases "stun" and "turn". TURN [RFC5766] is an the service name aliases "stun" and "turn". Traversal Using
extension to the STUN [RFC5389] service. TURN-enabled clients Relays around NAT (TURN) [RFC5766] is an extension to the Session
wishing to locate TURN servers could attempt to discover "stun" Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC5389] service. TURN-
services and then check in-band if the server also supports TURN, enabled clients wishing to locate TURN servers could attempt to
but this would be inefficient. Enabling them to directly query discover "stun" services and then check in-band if the server also
for "turn" servers by name is a better approach. (Note that TURN supports TURN, but this would be inefficient. Enabling them to
servers in this case should also be locatable via a "stun" directly query for "turn" servers by name is a better approach.
discovery, because every TURN server is also a STUN server.) (Note that TURN servers in this case should also be locatable via
a "stun" discovery, because every TURN server is also a STUN
server.)
o By historical accident, the service name "http" has two synonyms o By historical accident, the service name "http" has two synonyms
"www" and "www-http". When used in SRV records [RFC2782] and "www" and "www-http". When used in SRV records [RFC2782] and
similar service discovery mechanisms, only the service name "http" similar service discovery mechanisms, only the service name "http"
should be used, not these additional names. If a server were to should be used, not these additional names. If a server were to
advertise "www", it would not be discovered by clients browsing advertise "www", it would not be discovered by clients browsing
for "http". Advertising or browsing for the aliases as well as for "http". Advertising or browsing for the aliases as well as
the primary service name is inefficient, and achieves nothing that the primary service name is inefficient, and achieves nothing that
is not already achieved by using the service name "http" is not already achieved by using the service name "http"
exclusively. exclusively.
skipping to change at page 9, line 35 skipping to change at page 9, line 36
referring to discovery services, e.g., using multicast or broadcast referring to discovery services, e.g., using multicast or broadcast
to identify endpoints capable of a given service, SHOULD use an to identify endpoints capable of a given service, SHOULD use an
easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc"). easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc").
5.1. Service Name Syntax 5.1. Service Name Syntax
Valid service names are hereby normatively defined as follows: Valid service names are hereby normatively defined as follows:
o MUST be at least 1 character and no more than 15 characters long o MUST be at least 1 character and no more than 15 characters long
o MUST contain only US-ASCII [ANSI.X3-4.1986] letters 'A' - 'Z' and o MUST contain only US-ASCII [ANSI.X3.4-1986] letters 'A' - 'Z' and
'a' - 'z', digits '0' - '9', and hyphens ('-', ASCII 0x2D or 'a' - 'z', digits '0' - '9', and hyphens ('-', ASCII 0x2D or
decimal 45) decimal 45)
o MUST contain at least one letter ('A' - 'Z' or 'a' - 'z') o MUST contain at least one letter ('A' - 'Z' or 'a' - 'z')
o MUST NOT begin or end with a hyphen o MUST NOT begin or end with a hyphen
o hyphens MUST NOT be adjacent to other hyphens o hyphens MUST NOT be adjacent to other hyphens
The reason for requiring at least one letter is to avoid service The reason for requiring at least one letter is to avoid service
skipping to change at page 10, line 17 skipping to change at page 10, line 17
appear to have. For example, a company called "Example" may choose appear to have. For example, a company called "Example" may choose
to register service names "Example-Foo" and "Example-Bar" for its to register service names "Example-Foo" and "Example-Bar" for its
"Foo" and "Bar" products, but the "Example" company cannot claim to "Foo" and "Bar" products, but the "Example" company cannot claim to
"own" all service names beginning with "Example-"; they cannot "own" all service names beginning with "Example-"; they cannot
prevent someone else from registering "Example-Baz" for a different prevent someone else from registering "Example-Baz" for a different
service, and they cannot prevent other developers from using the service, and they cannot prevent other developers from using the
"Example-Foo" and "Example-Bar" service types in order to "Example-Foo" and "Example-Bar" service types in order to
interoperate with the "Foo" and "Bar" products. Technically interoperate with the "Foo" and "Bar" products. Technically
speaking, in service discovery protocols, service names are merely a speaking, in service discovery protocols, service names are merely a
series of byte values on the wire; for the mnemonic convenience of series of byte values on the wire; for the mnemonic convenience of
human developers it can be convenient to interpret those byte values human developers, it can be convenient to interpret those byte values
as human-readable ASCII characters, but software should treat them as as human-readable ASCII characters, but software should treat them as
purely opaque identifiers and not attempt to parse them for any purely opaque identifiers and not attempt to parse them for any
additional embedded meaning. additional embedded meaning.
In approximately 98% of cases, the new "service name" is exactly the As of August 5, 2009, approximately 98% of the so-called "Short
same as the old historic "short name" from the IANA web forms Names" [SYSFORM] [USRFORM] for existing port number assignments
[SYSFORM] [USRFORM]. In approximately 2% of cases, the new "service [PORTREG] already met the rules for legal service names stated in
name" is derived from the old historic "short name" as described Section 8.1, and hence for these services their service name is
below in Section 10.1. exactly the same as their historical "Short Name". In approximately
2% of cases, the new "service name" is derived based on the old
"Short Name" as described below in Section 10.1.
The rules for valid service names, excepting the limit of 15 The rules for valid service names, excepting the limit of 15
characters maximum, are also expressed below (as a non-normative characters maximum, are also expressed below (as a non-normative
convenience) using ABNF [RFC5234]. convenience) using ABNF [RFC5234].
SRVNAME = *(1*DIGIT [HYPHEN]) ALPHA *([HYPHEN] ALNUM) SRVNAME = *(1*DIGIT [HYPHEN]) ALPHA *([HYPHEN] ALNUM)
ALNUM = ALPHA / DIGIT ; A-Z, a-z, 0-9 ALNUM = ALPHA / DIGIT ; A-Z, a-z, 0-9
HYPHEN = %x2D ; "-" HYPHEN = %x2D ; "-"
ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z [RFC5234] ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z [RFC5234]
DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9 [RFC5234] DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9 [RFC5234]
skipping to change at page 10, line 48 skipping to change at page 10, line 50
5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records 5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records
The DNS SRV specification [RFC2782] states that the Service Label The DNS SRV specification [RFC2782] states that the Service Label
part of the owner name of a DNS SRV record includes a "Service" part of the owner name of a DNS SRV record includes a "Service"
element, described as "the symbolic name of the desired service", but element, described as "the symbolic name of the desired service", but
as discussed above, it is not clear precisely what this means. as discussed above, it is not clear precisely what this means.
This document clarifies that the Service Label MUST be a service name This document clarifies that the Service Label MUST be a service name
as defined herein with an underscore prepended. The service name as defined herein with an underscore prepended. The service name
SHOULD be registered with IANA and recorded in the Service Name and SHOULD be registered with IANA and recorded in the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry [PORTREG]. Transport Protocol Port Number registry [PORTREG].
The details of using Service Names in SRV Service Labels are The details of using Service Names in SRV Service Labels are
specified in the DNS SRV specification [RFC2782]. specified in the DNS SRV specification [RFC2782].
6. Port Number Ranges 6. Port Number Ranges
TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their
port number registries. The port registries for all of these port number registries. The port registries for all of these
transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers
[RFC1340], and Section 8.1.2 describes the IANA procedures for each [RFC1340], and Section 8.1.2 describes the IANA procedures for each
range in detail: range in detail:
o the System Ports, also known as the Well Known Ports, from 0-1023 o the System Ports, also known as the Well Known Ports, from 0-1023
(assigned by IANA) (assigned by IANA)
o the User Ports, also known as the Registered Ports, from 1024- o the User Ports, also known as the Registered Ports, from 1024-
49151 (assigned by IANA) 49151 (assigned by IANA)
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
only records the Assigned and Reserved service names and port numbers only records the Assigned and Reserved service names and port numbers
in the registry. Unassigned values are typically not explicitly in the registry. Unassigned values are typically not explicitly
listed. (There are very many Unassigned service names and listed. (There are very many Unassigned service names and
enumerating them all would not be practical.) enumerating them all would not be practical.)
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 System Ports were assigned, and approximately 9% of the TCP and UDP System Ports were assigned, and approximately 9% of
the User Ports were assigned. (As noted, Dynamic Ports are never the User Ports were assigned. (As noted, Dynamic Ports are never
assigned.) assigned.)
6.1. Service names and Port Numbers for Experimentation 6.1. Service Names and Port Numbers for Experimentation
Of the System Ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and 1022), Of the System Ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and 1022),
together with their respective service names ("exp1" and "exp2"), together with their respective service names ("exp1" and "exp2"),
have been assigned for experimentation with new applications and have been assigned for experimentation with new applications and
application-layer protocols that require a port number in the application-layer protocols that require a port number in the
assigned ports range [RFC4727]. assigned ports range [RFC4727].
Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental and Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental and
Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] for how these Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] for how these
experimental port numbers are to be used. experimental port numbers are to be used.
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, line 34
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.
7. Principles for Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number 7. Principles for Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Registry Management Registry Management
Management procedures for the service name and transport protocol Management procedures for the Service Name and Transport Protocol
port number registry include assignment of service names and port Port Number registry include assignment of service names and port
numbers upon request, as well as management of information about numbers upon request, as well as management of information about
existing assignments. The latter includes maintaining contact and existing assignments. The latter includes maintaining contact and
description information about assignments, revoking abandoned description information about assignments, revoking abandoned
assignments, and redefining assignments when needed. Of these assignments, and redefining assignments when needed. Of these
procedures, careful port number assignment is most critical, in order procedures, careful port number assignment is most critical, in order
to continue to conserve the remaining port numbers. to continue to conserve the remaining port numbers.
As noted earlier, only about 9% of the User Port space is currently As noted earlier, only about 9% of the User Port space is currently
assigned. The current rate of assignment is approximately 400 ports assigned. The current rate of assignment is approximately 400 ports
per year, and has remained steady for the past 8 years. At that per year, and has remained steady for the past 8 years. At that
skipping to change at page 13, line 35 skipping to change at page 13, line 35
o SCTP and DCCP service name and port number registries were managed o SCTP and DCCP service name and port number registries were managed
separately from the TCP/UDP registries separately from the TCP/UDP registries
o Service names could not be assigned in the old ports registry o Service names could not be assigned in the old ports registry
without assigning an associated port number at the same time without assigning an associated port number at the same time
7.2. Updated Principles 7.2. Updated Principles
This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA both This section summarizes the current principles by which IANA both
handles the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry handles the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry
and attempts to conserve the port number space. This description is and attempts to conserve the port number space. This description is
intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port intended to inform applicants requesting service names and port
numbers. IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling numbers. IANA has flexibility beyond these principles when handling
assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions assignment requests; other factors may come into play, and exceptions
may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet. Applicants may be made to best serve the needs of the Internet. Applicants
should be aware that IANA decisions are not required to be bound to should be aware that IANA decisions are not required to be bound to
these principles. These principles and general advice to users on these principles. These principles and general advice to users on
port use are expected to change over time and are therefore port use are expected to change over time.
documented separately, please see [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-use].
IANA strives to assign service names that do not request an IANA strives to assign service names that do not request an
associated port number assignment under a simple "First Come, First associated port number assignment under a simple "First Come First
Served" policy [RFC5226]. IANA MAY, at its discretion, refer service Served" policy [RFC5226]. IANA MAY, at its discretion, refer service
name requests to "Expert Review" in cases of mass assignment requests name requests to "Expert Review" in cases of mass assignment requests
or other situations where IANA believes expert review is advisable or other situations where IANA believes "Expert Review" is advisable
[RFC5226]; use of the "Expert Review" helps advise IANA informally in [RFC5226]; use of the "Expert Review" helps advise IANA informally in
cases where "IETF Review" or "IESG Review" is used, as with most IETF cases where "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" is used, as with most
protocols. IETF protocols.
The basic principle of service name and port number registry The basic principle of service name and port number registry
management is to conserve use of the port space where possible. management is to conserve use of the port space where possible.
Extensions to support larger port number spaces would require Extensions to support larger port number spaces would require
changing many core protocols of the current Internet in a way that changing many core protocols of the current Internet in a way that
would not be backward compatible and interfere with both current and would not be backward compatible and interfere with both current and
legacy applications. legacy applications.
Conservation of the port number space is required because this space Conservation of the port number space is required because this space
is a limited resource, so applications are expected to participate in is a limited resource, so applications are expected to participate in
the traffic demultiplexing process where feasible. The port numbers the traffic demultiplexing process where feasible. The port numbers
are expected to encode as little information as possible that will are expected to encode as little information as possible that will
still enable an application to perform further demultiplexing by still enable an application to perform further demultiplexing by
itself. In particular, the principles form a goal that IANA strives itself. In particular, the principles form a goal that IANA strives
to achieve for new applications (with exceptions as deemed to achieve for new applications (with exceptions as deemed
appropriate, especially as for extensions to legacy services) as appropriate, especially as for extensions to legacy services) as
follows: follows:
o IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service o IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number per service
or application or application.
Note: At the time of writing of this document, there is no IETF
consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second port for an
insecure version of a protocol.
o IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number for all o IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number for all
variants of a service (e.g., for updated versions of a service) variants of a service (e.g., for updated versions of a service).
o IANA strives to encourage the deployment of secure protocols o IANA strives to encourage the deployment of secure protocols.
o IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number for all o IANA strives to assign only one assigned port number for all
different types of device using or participating in the same different types of devices using or participating in the same
service service.
o IANA strives to assign port numbers only for the transport o IANA strives to assign port numbers only for the transport
protocol(s) explicitly named in an assignment request protocol(s) explicitly named in an assignment request.
o IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of o IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of
de-assignment, revocation, and transfer de-assignment, revocation, and transfer.
Where possible, a given service is expected to demultiplex messages Where possible, a given service is expected to demultiplex messages
if necessary. For example, applications and protocols are expected if necessary. For example, applications and protocols are expected
to include in-band version information, so that future versions of to include in-band version information, so that future versions of
the application or protocol can share the same assigned port. the application or protocol can share the same assigned 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 assigned port for multiple sessions, either efficiently use a single assigned port for multiple sessions, either
by demultiplexing multiple streams within one port, or using the by demultiplexing multiple streams within one port or by using the
assigned port to coordinate using dynamic ports for subsequent assigned 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]).
These principles of port conservation are explained further in
[I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-use]. That document explains in further detail Ports are used in various ways, notably:
how ports are used in various ways, notably:
o as endpoint process identifiers o as endpoint process identifiers
o as application protocol identifiers o as application protocol identifiers
o for firewall filtering purposes o for firewall-filtering purposes
Both the process identifier and the protocol identifier uses suggest Both the process-identifier and the protocol-identifier uses suggest
that anything a single process can demultiplex, or that can be that anything a single process can demultiplex, or that can be
encoded into a single protocol, should be. The firewall filtering encoded into a single protocol, should be. The firewall-filtering
use suggests that some uses that could be multiplexed or encoded use suggests that some uses that could be multiplexed or encoded
could instead be separated to allow for easier firewall management. could instead be separated to allow for easier firewall management.
Note that this latter use is much less sound, because port numbers Note that this latter use is much less sound, because port numbers
have meaning only for the two endpoints involved in a connection, and have meaning only for the two endpoints involved in a connection, and
drawing conclusions about the service that generated a given flow drawing conclusions about the service that generated a given flow
based on observed port numbers is not always reliable. based on observed port numbers is not always reliable.
IANA will begin assigning port numbers for only those transport Effective with the publication of this document, IANA will begin
protocols explicitly included in an assignment request. This ends assigning port numbers for only those transport protocols explicitly
the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number included in an assignment request. This ends the long-standing
to an application for both TCP and UDP, even if the request is for practice of automatically assigning a port number to an application
only one of these transport protocols. The new assignment procedure for both TCP and UDP, even if the request is for only one of these
conserves resources by assigning a port number to an application for transport protocols. The new assignment procedure conserves
only those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or DCCP) it resources by assigning a port number to an application for only those
actually uses. The port number will be marked as Reserved - instead transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP, and/or DCCP) it actually uses.
of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other transport The port number will be marked as Reserved -- instead of Assigned --
protocols. When applications start supporting the use of some of in the port number registries of the other transport protocols. When
those additional transport protocols, the Assignee for the assignment applications start supporting the use of some of those additional
MUST request IANA convert these reserved ports into assignments. An transport protocols, the Assignee for the assignment MUST request
that IANA convert these reserved ports into assignments. An
application MUST NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to application MUST NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to
it for use with one transport protocol with another transport it for use with one transport protocol with another transport
protocol without IANA converting the reservation into an assignment. protocol without IANA converting the reservation into an assignment.
When the available pool of unassigned numbers has run out in a port When the available pool of unassigned numbers has run out in a port
range, it will be necessary for IANA to consider the Reserved ports range, it will be necessary for IANA to consider the Reserved ports
for assignment. This is part of the motivation for not automatically for assignment. This is part of the motivation for not automatically
assigning ports for transport protocols other than the requested assigning ports for transport protocols other than the requested
one(s). This will allow more ports to be available for assignment at one(s). This will allow more ports to be available for assignment at
that point. To help conserve ports, application developers SHOULD that point. To help conserve ports, application developers SHOULD
request assignment of only those transport protocols that their request assignment of only those transport protocols that their
application currently uses. application currently uses.
Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow
previously allocated port numbers to become Unassigned, either previously assigned port numbers to become Unassigned, either through
through de-assignment or through revocation, and by a procedure that de-assignment or through revocation, and by a procedure that lets
lets application designers transfer an assigned but unused port application designers transfer an assigned but unused port number to
number to a new application. Section 8 describes these procedures, a new application. Section 8 describes these procedures, which until
which until now were undocumented. Port number conservation is also now were undocumented. Port number conservation is also improved by
improved by recommending that applications that do not require an recommending that applications that do not require an assigned port
assigned port should register only a service name without an should register only a service name without an associated port
associated port number. number.
8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Service Name and Transport Protocol 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Service Name and Transport Protocol
Port Number Registry Port Number Registry
This section describes the process for handling requests associated This section describes the process for handling requests associated
with IANA's management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol with IANA's management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol
Port Number Registry. Such requests include initial assignment, de- Port Number registry. Such requests include initial assignment, de-
assignment, reuse, changes to the service name, and updates to the assignment, reuse, and updates to the contact information or
contact information or description associated with an assignment. description associated with an assignment. Revocation is an
Revocation is as additional process, initiated by IANA. additional process, initiated by IANA.
8.1. Service Name and Port Number Assignment 8.1. Service Name and Port Number Assignment
Assignment refers to the process of providing service names or port Assignment refers to the process of providing service names or port
numbers to applicants. All such assignments are made from service numbers to applicants. All such assignments are made from service
names or port numbers that are Unassigned or Reserved at the time of names or port numbers that are Unassigned or Reserved at the time of
the assignment. the assignment.
o Unassigned names and numbers are allocated according to the rules o Unassigned names and numbers are assigned according to the rules
described in Section 8.1.2 below. described in Section 8.1.2 below.
o Reserved numbers and names are generally only assigned by a o Reserved numbers and names are generally only assigned by a
Standards Action or an IESG Approval, and MUST be accompanied by a "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval", and MUST be accompanied by
statement explaining the reason a Reserved number or name is a statement explaining the reason a Reserved number or name is
appropriate for this action. The only exception to this rule is appropriate for this action. The only exception to this rule is
that the current Assignee of a port number MAY request the that the current Assignee of a port number MAY request the
assignment of the corresponding Reserved port number for other assignment of the corresponding Reserved port number for other
transport protocols when needed. IANA will initiate an "Expert transport protocols when needed. IANA will initiate an "Expert
Review" [RFC5226] for such requests. Review" [RFC5226] for such requests.
When an assignment for one or more transport protocols is approved, When an assignment for one or more transport protocols is approved,
the port number for any non-requested transport protocol(s) will be the port number for any non-requested transport protocol(s) will be
marked as Reserved. IANA SHOULD NOT assign that port number to any marked as Reserved. IANA SHOULD NOT assign that port number to any
other application or service until no other port numbers remain other application or service until no other port numbers remain
Unassigned in the requested range. Unassigned in the requested range. It is anticipated that at such
time a new document will be published specifying IANA procedures for
assignment of such ports.
8.1.1. General Assignment Procedure 8.1.1. General Assignment Procedure
A service name or port number assignment request contains the A service name or port number assignment request contains the
following information. The service name is the unique identifier of following information. The service name is the unique identifier of
a given service: a given service:
Service Name (REQUIRED) Service Name (REQUIRED)
Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED) Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED)
Assignee (REQUIRED) Assignee (REQUIRED)
Contact (REQUIRED) Contact (REQUIRED)
Description (REQUIRED) Description (REQUIRED)
Reference (REQUIRED) Reference (REQUIRED)
skipping to change at page 17, line 28 skipping to change at page 17, line 31
o Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service o Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service
associated with the assignment request MUST be provided. This associated with the assignment request MUST be provided. This
name may be used with various service selection and discovery name may be used with various service selection and discovery
mechanisms (including, but not limited to, DNS SRV records mechanisms (including, but not limited to, DNS SRV records
[RFC2782]). The name MUST be compliant with the syntax defined in [RFC2782]). The name MUST be compliant with the syntax defined in
Section 5.1. In order to be unique, they MUST NOT be identical to Section 5.1. In order to be unique, they MUST NOT be identical to
any currently assigned service name in the IANA registry any currently assigned service name in the IANA registry
[PORTREG]. Service names are case-insensitive; they may be [PORTREG]. Service names are case-insensitive; they may be
provided and entered into the registry with mixed case for provided and entered into the registry with mixed case for
clarity, but for the comparison purposes the case is ignored. clarity, but case is ignored otherwise.
o Transport Protocol(s): The transport protocol(s) for which an o Transport Protocol(s): The transport protocol(s) for which an
assignment is requested MUST be provided. This field is currently assignment is requested MUST be provided. This field is currently
limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP. Requests limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP. Requests
without any port assignment and only a service name are still without any port assignment and only a service name are still
required to indicate which protocol the service uses. required to indicate which protocol the service uses.
o Assignee: Name and email address of the party to whom the o Assignee: Name and email address of the party to whom the
assignment is made. This is REQUIRED. The Assignee is the assignment is made. This is REQUIRED. The Assignee is the
organization, company or individual person responsible for the organization, company or individual person responsible for the
skipping to change at page 18, line 10 skipping to change at page 18, line 13
Contact, the Assignee decisions take precedence. Additional Contact, the Assignee decisions take precedence. Additional
address information MAY be provided. For assignments done through address information MAY be provided. For assignments done through
RFCs published via the "IETF Document Stream" [RFC4844], the RFCs published via the "IETF Document Stream" [RFC4844], the
Contact will be the IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>. Contact will be the IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>.
o Description: A short description of the service associated with o Description: A short description of the service associated with
the assignment request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the the assignment request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the
most well-known acronyms. most well-known acronyms.
o Reference: A description of (or a reference to a document o Reference: A description of (or a reference to a document
describing) the protocol or application using this port. The describing) the protocol or application using this port. This is
description must state whether the protocol uses IP-layer REQUIRED. The description must state whether the protocol uses
broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication. IP-layer broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication.
For assignments requesting only a Service Name, or a Service Name For assignments requesting only a Service Name, or a Service Name
and User Port, a statement that the protocol is proprietary and and User Port, a statement that the protocol is proprietary and
not publicly documented is also acceptable, provided that the not publicly documented is also acceptable, provided that the
required information regarding the use of IP broadcast, multicast, required information regarding the use of IP broadcast, multicast,
or anycast is given. or anycast is given.
For any assignment request that includes a User Port, the For any assignment request that includes a User Port, the
assignment request MUST explain why a port number in the Dynamic assignment request MUST explain why a port number in the Dynamic
Ports range is unsuitable for the given application. Ports range (discovered by clients dynamically at run-time) is
unsuitable for the given application.
For any assignment request that includes a System Port, the For any assignment request that includes a System Port, the
assignment request MUST explain why a port number in the User assignment request MUST explain why a port number in the User
Ports or Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable, and a reference to a Ports or Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable, and a reference to a
stable protocol specification document MUST be provided. stable protocol specification document MUST be provided.
IANA MAY accept early assignment [RFC4020] requests (known as IANA MAY accept early assignment [RFC4020] requests (known as
"early allocation" therein) from IETF Working Groups that "early allocation" therein) from IETF working groups that
reference a sufficiently stable Internet Draft instead of a reference a sufficiently stable Internet-Draft instead of a
published Standards-Track RFC. published Standards-Track RFC.
o Port Number: If assignment of a port number is desired, either the o Port Number: If assignment of a port number is desired, either the
port number the requester suggests for assignment or indication of port number the requester suggests for assignment or indication of
port range (user or system) MUST be provided. If only a service port range (user or system) MUST be provided. If only a service
name is to be assigned, this field is left empty. If a specific name is to be assigned, this field is left empty. If a specific
port number is requested, IANA is encouraged to assign the port number is requested, IANA is encouraged to assign the
requested number. If a range is specified, IANA will choose a requested number. If a range is specified, IANA will choose a
suitable number from the User or System Ports ranges. Note that suitable number from the User or System Ports ranges. Note that
the applicant MUST NOT use the requested port prior to the the applicant MUST NOT use the requested port in implementations
completion of the assignment. deployed for use on the public Internet prior to the completion of
the assignment, because there is no guarantee that IANA will
assign the requested port.
o Service Code: If the assignment request includes DCCP as a o Service Code: If the assignment request includes DCCP as a
transport protocol then the request MUST include a desired unique transport protocol, then the request MUST include a desired unique
DCCP service code [RFC5595], and MUST NOT include a requested DCCP DCCP service code [RFC5595], and MUST NOT include a requested DCCP
service code otherwise. Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification service code otherwise. Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification
[RFC4340] defines requirements and rules for assignment, updated [RFC4340] defines requirements and rules for assignment, updated
by this document. Note that, as per [RFC5595], some service codes by this document. Note that, as per the DCCP Service Codes
are not assigned; zero (absence of a meaningful service code) or document [RFC5595], some service codes are not assigned; zero
4294967295 (invalid service code) are permanently reserved, and (absence of a meaningful service code) and 4294967295 (0xFFFFFFFF;
the Private service codes 1056964608-1073741823 (i.e., 32-bit invalid service code) are permanently reserved, and the Private
values with the high-order byte equal to a value of 63, service codes 1056964608-1073741823 (0x3F000000-0x3FFFFFFF; i.e.,
corresponding to the ASCII character '?') are not centrally 32-bit values with the high-order byte equal to a value of 63
assigned. (0x3F), corresponding to the ASCII character '?') are not
centrally assigned.
o Known Unauthorized Uses: A list of uses by applications or o Known Unauthorized Uses: A list of uses by applications or
organizations who are not the Assignee. This list may be organizations who are not the Assignee. This is OPTIONAL. This
augmented by IANA after assignment when unauthorized uses are list may be augmented by IANA after assignment when unauthorized
reported. uses are reported.
o Assignment Notes: Indications of owner/name change, or any other o Assignment Notes: Indications of owner/name change, or any other
assignment process issue. This list may be updated by IANA after assignment process issue. This is OPTIONAL. This list may be
assignment to help track changes to an assignment, e.g., de- updated by IANA after assignment to help track changes to an
assignment, owner/name changes, etc. assignment, e.g., de-assignment, owner/name changes, etc.
If the assignment request is for the addition of a new transport If the assignment request is for the addition of a new transport
protocol to an already-assigned service name and the requester is not protocol to a previously assigned service name and the requester is
the Assignee or Contact for the already-assigned service name, IANA not the Assignee or Contact for the previously assigned service name,
needs to confirm with the Assignee for the existing assignment IANA needs to confirm with the Assignee for the existing assignment
whether this addition is appropriate. whether this addition is appropriate.
If the assignment request is for a new service name sharing the same If the assignment request is for a new service name sharing the same
port as an already-assigned service name (see port number overloading port as a previously assigned service name (see port number
in Section 5), IANA needs to confirm with the Assignee for the overloading in Section 5), IANA needs to confirm with the Assignee
existing service name and other appropriate experts whether the for the existing service name and other appropriate experts whether
overloading is appropriate. the overloading is appropriate.
When IANA receives an assignment request - containing the above When IANA receives an assignment request -- containing the above
information - that is requesting a port number, IANA SHALL initiate information -- that is requesting a port number, IANA SHALL initiate
an "Expert Review" [RFC5226] in order to determine whether an an "Expert Review" [RFC5226] in order to determine whether an
assignment should be made. For requests that are not seeking a port assignment should be made. For requests that are not seeking a port
number, IANA SHOULD assign the service name under a simple "First number, IANA SHOULD assign the service name under a simple "First
Come First Served" policy [RFC5226]. Come First Served" policy [RFC5226].
8.1.2. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges 8.1.2. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges
Section 6 describes the different port number ranges. It is 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 port ranges of the service name and port when managing the different port ranges of the service name and port
skipping to change at page 20, line 23 skipping to change at page 20, line 39
the "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226] and no the "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures [RFC5226] and no
further documentation is required. Where these procedures do not further documentation is required. Where these procedures do not
apply, then the requester must input the documentation to the apply, then the requester must input the documentation to the
"Expert Review" procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a "Expert Review" procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a
technical expert review the request to determine whether to grant technical expert review the request to determine whether to grant
the assignment. Regardless of the path ("IETF Review", "IESG the assignment. Regardless of the path ("IETF Review", "IESG
Approval", or "Expert Review"), the submitted documentation is Approval", or "Expert Review"), the submitted documentation is
expected to be the same, as described in this section, and MUST expected to be the same, as described in this section, and MUST
explain why using a port number in the Dynamic Ports range is explain why using a port number in the Dynamic Ports range is
unsuitable for the given application. Further, IANA MAY utilize unsuitable for the given application. Further, IANA MAY utilize
the Expert Review process informally to inform their position in the "Expert Review" process informally to inform their position in
participating in "IETF Review" and "IESG Review" participating in "IETF Review" and "IESG Approval".
o Ports in the System Ports range (0-1023) are also available for o Ports in the System Ports range (0-1023) are also available for
assignment through IANA. Because the System Ports range is both assignment through IANA. Because the System Ports range is both
the smallest and the most densely allocated, the requirements for the smallest and the most densely assigned, the requirements for
new assignments are more strict than those for the User Ports new assignments are more strict than those for the User Ports
range, and will only be granted under the "IETF Review" or "IESG range, and will only be granted under the "IETF Review" or "IESG
Approval" procedures [RFC5226]. A request for a System Port Approval" procedures [RFC5226]. A request for a System Port
number MUST document *both* why using a port number from the number MUST document *both* why using a port number from the
Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable *and* why using a port number Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable *and* why using a port number
from the User Ports range is unsuitable for that application. from the User Ports range is unsuitable for that application.
8.2. Service Name and Port Number De-Assignment 8.2. Service Name and Port Number De-Assignment
The Assignee of a granted port number assignment can return the port The Assignee of a granted port number assignment can return the port
number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a need for it. The number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a need for it. The
port number will be de-assigned and will be marked as Reserved. IANA port number will be de-assigned and will be marked as Reserved. IANA
should not re-assign port numbers that have been de-assigned until should not reassign port numbers that have been de-assigned until all
all unassigned port numbers in the specific range have been assigned. unassigned port numbers in the specific range have been assigned.
Before proceeding with a port number de-assignment, IANA needs to Before proceeding with a port number de-assignment, 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-assigned. Under this policy, it number assignments have become de-assigned. Under this policy, it
will appear in the registry as if it had been created through a will appear in the registry as if it had been created through a
service name assignment request that did not include any port service name assignment request that did not include any port
skipping to change at page 21, line 33 skipping to change at page 21, line 50
information that needs to be provided about the proposed new use of information that needs to be provided about the proposed new use of
the port number is identical to what would need to be provided for a the port number is identical to what would need to be provided for a
new port number assignment for the specific ports range. new port number assignment for the specific 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 name be created and number remains assigned, and a new service name be created and
associated with the port number. This is again consistent with associated with the port number. This is again consistent with
viewing a reuse request as a de-assignment followed by an immediate viewing a reuse request as a de-assignment followed by an immediate
(re-)assignment. Re-using an assigned service name for a different (re-)assignment. Reusing an assigned service name for a different
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 the port number was assigned to has found usage beyond application the port number was assigned to has found usage beyond
the original Assignee, or that there is a concern that it may have the original Assignee, or that there is a concern that it may have
such users. This determination MUST be made quickly. A community such users. This determination MUST be made quickly. A community
call concerning revocation of a port number (see below) MAY be call concerning revocation of a port number (see below) MAY be
considered, if a broader use of the port number is suspected. considered, if a broader use of the port number is suspected.
skipping to change at page 22, line 13 skipping to change at page 22, line 30
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
formulate a request to the IESG to issue a four-week community call formulate a request to the IESG to issue a four-week community call
concerning the pending port number revocation. The IESG and IANA, concerning the pending port number revocation. The IESG and IANA,
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-assignment except that it is typically involves similar steps to de-assignment 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.
8.5. Service Name and Port Number Transfers 8.5. Service Name and Port Number Transfers
skipping to change at page 22, line 37 skipping to change at page 23, line 6
a result, the IETF does not permit service name or port number a result, the IETF does not permit service name or port number
assignments to be transferred between parties, even when they are assignments to be transferred between parties, even when they are
mutually consenting. mutually consenting.
The appropriate alternate procedure is a coordinated de-assignment The appropriate alternate procedure is a coordinated de-assignment
and assignment: The new party requests the service name or port and assignment: The new party requests the service name or port
number via an assignment and the previous party releases its number via an assignment and the previous party releases its
assignment via the de-assignment procedure outlined above. assignment via the de-assignment 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 to grant the requested new assignment. managerial reason to grant the requested new assignment.
8.6. Maintenance Issues 8.6. Maintenance Issues
In addition to the formal procedures described above, updates to the In addition to the formal procedures described above, updates to the
Description and Contact information are coordinated by IANA in an Description and Contact information are coordinated by IANA in an
informal manner, and may be initiated by either the Assignee or by informal manner, and may be initiated by either the Assignee or by
IANA, e.g., by the latter requesting an update to current Contact IANA, e.g., by the latter requesting an update to current Contact
information. (Note that the Assignee cannot be changed as a separate information. (Note that the Assignee cannot be changed as a separate
procedure; see instead Section 8.5 above.) procedure; see instead Section 8.5 above.)
8.7. Disagreements 8.7. Disagreements
In the case of disagreements around any request there is the In the case of disagreements around any request, there is the
possibility of appeal following the normal appeals process for IANA possibility of appeal following the normal appeals process for IANA
assignments as defined by Section 7 of "Guidelines for Writing an assignments as defined by Section 7 of "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].
9. 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 UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP. security properties of UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP.
Assignment of a service name or port number does not in any way imply Assignment of a service name or port number does not in any way imply
skipping to change at page 23, line 37 skipping to change at page 24, line 10
default or dynamically negotiated in-band. The use of separate default or dynamically negotiated in-band. The use of separate
service name or port number assignments for secure and insecure service name or port number assignments for secure and insecure
variants of the same service is to be avoided in order to discourage variants of the same service is to be avoided in order to discourage
the deployment of insecure services. the deployment of insecure services.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of the March 2000 IANA This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of the March 2000 IANA
Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780]. Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to contact Stuart Upon approval of this document for publication as an RFC, IANA worked
Cheshire, maintainer of the independent service name registry with Stuart Cheshire, maintainer of the independent service name
[SRVREG], in order to merge the contents of that private registry registry [SRVREG], to merge the contents of that private registry
into the official IANA registry. It is expected that the independent into the official IANA registry. The independent registry web page
registry web page will be updated with pointers to the IANA registry has been updated with pointers to the IANA registry and to this RFC.
and to this RFC.
IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in the service IANA created a new service name entry in the service name and port
name and port number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the number registry [PORTREG] for all entries in the Protocol and Service
"Protocol and Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not Names registry [PROTSERVREG] that did not already have one assigned.
already have one assigned.
IANA is also instructed to indicate in the Assignment Notes for "www" IANA also indicates in the Assignment Notes for "www" and "www-http"
and "www-http" that they are duplicate terms that refer to the "http" that they are duplicate terms that refer to the "http" service, and
service, and should not be used for discovery purposes. For this should not be used for discovery purposes. For this conceptual
conceptual service (human-readable web pages served over HTTP) the service (human-readable web pages served over HTTP), the correct
correct service name to use for service discovery purposes is "http" service name to use for service discovery purposes is "http" (see
(see Section 5). Section 5).
10.1. Service Name Consistency 10.1. Service Name Consistency
Section 8.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service 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
in Section 8.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service in Section 8.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service
names with current and future service discovery mechanisms. names with current and future service discovery mechanisms.
As of August 5, 2009 approximately 98% of the so-called "Short Names" As of August 5, 2009, approximately 98% of the so-called "Short
from existing port number assignments [PORTREG] meet the rules for Names" from existing port number assignments [PORTREG] met the rules
legal service names stated in Section 8.1, and hence for these for legal service names stated in Section 8.1, and hence for these
services their service name will be exactly the same as their "Short services their service name is exactly the same as their "Short
Name". Name".
The remaining approximately 2% of the exiting "Short Names" are not The remaining approximately 2% of the existing "Short Names" are not
suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because
they contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, pluses, they contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, pluses,
slashes, or underscores. All existing "Short Names" conform to the slashes, or underscores. All existing "Short Names" conform to the
length requirement of 15 characters or fewer. For these unsuitable length requirement of 15 characters or fewer. For these 96
"Short Names", listed in the table below, the service name will be unsuitable "Short Names", listed in the table below, the service name
the Short Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens. IANA is the Short Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens.
SHALL add an entry to the registry giving the new well-formed primary IANA added an entry to the registry that uses the new well-formed
service name for the existing service, that otherwise duplicates the primary service name for the existing service and that otherwise
original assignment information. In the description field of this duplicates the original assignment information. In the description
new entry giving the primary service name, IANA SHALL record that it field of this new entry giving the primary service name, IANA
assigns a well-formed service name for the previous service and recorded that it has assigned a well-formed service name for the
reference the original assignment. In the Assignment Notes field of previous service and references the original assignment. In the
the original assignment, IANA SHALL add a note that this entry is an Assignment Notes field of the original assignment, IANA added a note
alias to the new well-formed service name, and that the old service that this entry is an alias to the new well-formed service name, and
name is historic, not usable for use with many common service that the old service name is historic, not usable for use with many
discovery mechanisms. common service discovery mechanisms.
Names containing illegal characters to be replaced by hyphens: 96 names containing illegal characters to be replaced by hyphens:
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 914c/g | acmaint_dbd | acmaint_transd | | 914c/g | acmaint_dbd | acmaint_transd |
| atex_elmd | avanti_cdp | badm_priv | | atex_elmd | avanti_cdp | badm_priv |
| badm_pub | bdir_priv | bdir_pub | | badm_pub | bdir_priv | bdir_pub |
| bmc_ctd_ldap | bmc_patroldb | boks_clntd | | bmc_ctd_ldap | bmc_patroldb | boks_clntd |
| boks_servc | boks_servm | broker_service | | boks_servc | boks_servm | broker_service |
| bues_service | canit_store | cedros_fds | | bues_service | canit_store | cedros_fds |
| cl/1 | contamac_icm | corel_vncadmin | | cl/1 | contamac_icm | corel_vncadmin |
| csc_proxy | cvc_hostd | dbcontrol_agent | | csc_proxy | cvc_hostd | dbcontrol_agent |
skipping to change at page 25, line 42 skipping to change at page 25, line 46
| 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 | sql*net | srvc_registry | | shiva_confsrvr | sql*net | srvc_registry |
| stm_pproc | subntbcst_tftp | udt_os | | stm_pproc | subntbcst_tftp | udt_os |
| universe_suite | veritas_pbx | vision_elmd | | universe_suite | veritas_pbx | vision_elmd |
| vision_server | wrs_registry | z39.50 | | vision_server | wrs_registry | z39.50 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
Following the example set by the "application/whoispp-query" MIME In addition to the 96 names listed above, the service name for
Content-Type [RFC2957], the service name for "whois++" will be "whois++" is "whoispp", following the example set by the
"whoispp". "application/whoispp-query" MIME Content-Type [RFC2957].
There were four names recorded in IANA's Port Number Registry
[PORTREG] that conflicted with names previously recorded in the ad
hoc SRV name registry [SRVREG]: esp, hydra, recipe, and xmp.
The name conflicts were resolved amicably:
The IANA Port Number Registry Short Name "esp" had been registered by
Andrew Chernow, and he informed the authors that the port was no
longer in use and the registration was no longer required. The SRV
registry entry for "esp" remains in effect.
The SRV name "hydra" for SubEthaEdit had already been retired in
favor of the new SRV name "see". The IANA Port Number Registry entry
for "hydra" remains in effect.
The SRV name "recipe" was in use in an open source project that had
not yet been packaged for distribution, and the registrant Daniel
Taylor was willing to change to a different service name. Thanks to
Daniel Taylor for accommodating this change. The IANA Port Number
Registry entry for "recipe" remains in effect.
The IANA Port Number Registry Short Name "xmp" had been registered by
Bobby Krupczak, but since his registration included an assigned port
number (which is still in use and remains unaffected by this change),
he was willing to switch to a different service name. Thanks to
Bobby Krupczak for accommodating this change. The SRV registry entry
for "xmp" remains in effect.
10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation 10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation
Two System UDP and TCP ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved for Two System UDP and TCP ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved for
experimental use [RFC4727]. This document assigns the same port experimental use [RFC4727]. This document assigns the same port
numbers for SCTP and DCCP, updates the TCP and UDP assignments, and numbers for SCTP and DCCP, updates the TCP and UDP assignments, and
also instructs IANA to automatically assign these two port numbers also instructs IANA to automatically assign these two port numbers
for any future transport protocol with a similar 16-bit port number for any future transport protocol with a similar 16-bit port number
namespace. namespace.
skipping to change at page 26, line 21 skipping to change at page 27, line 11
application developers must request a permanent port number application developers must request a permanent port number
assignment from IANA as described in Section 8.1 before any kind of assignment from IANA as described in Section 8.1 before any kind of
non-experimental deployment. non-experimental deployment.
+--------------------+-----------------------------+ +--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Service Name | exp1 | | Service Name | exp1 |
| Transport Protocol | DCCP, SCTP, TCP, UDP | | Transport Protocol | DCCP, SCTP, TCP, UDP |
| Assignee | IESG <iesg@ietf.org> | | Assignee | IESG <iesg@ietf.org> |
| Contact | IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> | | Contact | IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> |
| Description | RFC3692-style Experiment 1 | | Description | RFC3692-style Experiment 1 |
| Reference | [RFC4727] [RFCyyyy] | | Reference | [RFC4727] [RFC6335] |
| Port Number | 1021 | | Port Number | 1021 |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+ +--------------------+-----------------------------+
+--------------------+-----------------------------+ +--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Service Name | exp2 | | Service Name | exp2 |
| Transport Protocol | DCCP, SCTP, TCP, UDP | | Transport Protocol | DCCP, SCTP, TCP, UDP |
| Assignee | IESG <iesg@ietf.org> | | Assignee | IESG <iesg@ietf.org> |
| Contact | IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> | | Contact | IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> |
| Description | RFC3692-style Experiment 2 | | Description | RFC3692-style Experiment 2 |
| Reference | [RFC4727] [RFCyyyy] | | Reference | [RFC4727] [RFC6335] |
| Port Number | 1022 | | Port Number | 1022 |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+ +--------------------+-----------------------------+
[RFC Editor Note: Please change "yyyy" to the RFC number allocated to
this document before publication.]
10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries 10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries
This document updates the IANA assignment procedures for the DCCP This document updates the IANA assignment procedures for the DCCP
Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries [RFC4340]. Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries [RFC4340].
10.3.1. DCCP Service Code Registry 10.3.1. DCCP Service Code Registry
Service Codes are assigned first-come-first-served according to Service codes are assigned on a "first come, first served" basis
Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification [RFC4340]. This document according to Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification [RFC4340]. This
updates that section by extending the guidelines given there in the document updates that section by extending the guidelines given there
following ways: in the 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 if a request using their discretion, but SHOULD seek "Expert Review" if a
asks for more than five Service Codes. request asks for more than five service codes.
o IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer with any o IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer with any
questions related to requests for DCCP-related codepoints. questions related to requests for DCCP-related codepoints.
10.3.2. DCCP Port Numbers Registry 10.3.2. DCCP Port Numbers Registry
The DCCP ports registry is defined by Section 19.9 of the DCCP The DCCP ports registry is defined by Section 19.9 of the DCCP
specification [RFC4340]. Assignments in this registry require prior specification [RFC4340]. Assignments in this registry require prior
assignment of a Service Code. Not all Service Codes require IANA- assignment of a service code. Not all service codes require IANA-
assigned ports. This document updates that section by extending the assigned ports. This document updates that section by extending the
guidelines given there in the following way: 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 requests to assign port numbers in the DCCP server port. IANA requests to assign port numbers in the
System Ports range (0 through 1023), require an "IETF Review" System Ports range (0 through 1023) require an "IETF Review"
[RFC5226] prior to assignment by IANA [RFC4340]. [RFC5226] prior to assignment by IANA [RFC4340].
o IANA MUST NOT assign more than one DCCP server port to a single o IANA MUST NOT assign more than one DCCP server port to a single
service code value. service code value.
o The assignment of multiple service codes to the same DCCP port is o The assignment of multiple service codes to the same DCCP port is
allowed, but subject to expert review. allowed, but subject to "Expert Review".
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 service name and port number registry. should be recorded in the service name and port number 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 assigned 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 assignment. In other cases, contact associated with the port assignment. In other cases,
these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port, these applications will be expected to use an unassigned port,
when this is available. when this is available.
The DCCP specification [RFC4340] notes that a short port name MUST be The DCCP specification [RFC4340] notes that a short port name MUST be
associated with each DCCP server port that has been assigned. This associated with each DCCP server port that has been assigned. This
document clarifies that this short port name is the Service Name as document clarifies that this short port name is the service name as
defined here, and this name MUST be unique. defined here, and this name MUST be unique.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
Alfred Hoenes (ah@tr-sys.de) and Allison Mankin (mankin@psg.com) have Alfred Hoenes (ah@tr-sys.de) and Allison Mankin (mankin@psg.com) have
contributed text and ideas to this document. contributed text and ideas to this document.
12. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
The text in Section 10.3 is based on a suggestion originally proposed The text in Section 10.3 is based on a suggestion originally proposed
skipping to change at page 28, line 19 skipping to change at page 29, line 9
Fairhurst. Fairhurst.
Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project [TRILOGY], a Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project [TRILOGY], a
research project supported by the European Commission under its research project supported by the European Commission under its
Seventh Framework Program. Seventh Framework Program.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[ANSI.X3-4.1986] [ANSI.X3.4-1986] American National Standards Institute, "Coded
American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6,
RFC 793, September 1981. RFC 768, August 1980.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and
February 2000. Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
[RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS
G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol RR for specifying the location of services (DNS
(UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004. SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000.
[RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson,
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, L-E., and G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User
February 2005. Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020,
February 2005.
[RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
March 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6,
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727,
May 2008. November 2006.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
(DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009. Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
13.2. Informative References [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
January 2008.
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] [RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service Protocol (DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595,
Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-08 (work in September 2009.
progress), January 2011.
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] 13.2. Informative References
Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.
[I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-use] [DNS-SD] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Touch, J., "Recommendations for Transport Port Uses", Discovery", Work in Progress, February 2011.
draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use-00 (work in progress),
December 2010.
[IGD] UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) V 1.0", [IGD] UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) V 1.0",
November 2001. November 2001.
[PORTREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Service Name [NAT-PMP] Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-
and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", PMP)", Work in Progress, April 2008.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.
[PROTSERVREG] [PORTREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Protocol and "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Service Names Registry", Registry",
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>.
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", [PROTSERVREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. "Protocol and Service Names Registry",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names>.
[RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer
RFC 1078, November 1988. Protocol", STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC1340] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1340, [RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer
July 1992. (TCPMUX)", RFC 1078, November 1988.
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, [RFC1340] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers",
October 1994. RFC 1340, July 1992.
[RFC2957] Daigle, L. and P. Faltstrom, "The application/ [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers",
whoispp-query Content-Type", RFC 2957, October 2000. RFC 1700, October 1994.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by [RFC2957] Daigle, L. and P. Faltstrom, "The application/
an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002. whoispp-query Content-Type", RFC 2957,
October 2000.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. Replaced by an On-line Database", RFC 3232,
January 2002.
[RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, January 2004.
March 2006.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC [RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
Congestion Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control
(TFRC)", RFC 4342, March 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The
RFC 4960, September 2007. RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for [RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation
the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008. Guidelines for the Protocol Field", BCP 37,
RFC 5237, February 2008.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)",
October 2008. RFC 5389, October 2008.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg,
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
(STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.
[SRVREG] "DNS SRV Service Types Registry", [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),
for System (Well Known) Port Number", "Application for System (Well Known) Port Number",
http://www.iana.org/. <http://www.iana.org/>.
[TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/. [TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project",
<http://www.trilogy-project.org/>.
[USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application [USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
for User (Registered) Port Number", http://www.iana.org/. "Application for User (Registered) Port Number",
<http://www.iana.org/>.
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
USA USA
Phone: +1 310 823 9358 Phone: +1 310 823 9358
Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org EMail: michelle.cotton@icann.org
URI: http://www.iana.org/ URI: http://www.iana.org/
Lars Eggert Lars Eggert
Nokia Research Center Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407 P.O. Box 407
Nokia Group 00045 Nokia Group 00045
Finland Finland
Phone: +358 50 48 24461 Phone: +358 50 48 24461
Email: lars.eggert@nokia.com EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com
URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/ URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/
Joe Touch Joe Touch
USC/ISI USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way 4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
USA USA
Phone: +1 310 448 9151 Phone: +1 310 448 9151
Email: touch@isi.edu EMail: touch@isi.edu
URI: http://www.isi.edu/touch URI: http://www.isi.edu/touch
Magnus Westerlund Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson Ericsson
Farogatan 6 Farogatan 6
Stockholm 164 80 Stockholm 164 80
Sweden Sweden
Phone: +46 8 719 0000 Phone: +46 8 719 0000
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com EMail: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Stuart Cheshire Stuart Cheshire
Apple Inc. Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop 1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014
USA USA
Phone: +1 408 974 3207 Phone: +1 408 974 3207
Email: cheshire@apple.com EMail: cheshire@apple.com
URI: http://stuartcheshire.org/
 End of changes. 148 change blocks. 
356 lines changed or deleted 391 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/