[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-cotton-tsvwg-iana-ports) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 6335

Transport Area Working Group                                   M. Cotton
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Updates: 2780, 2782, 4340                                      L. Eggert
(if approved)                                                      Nokia
Intended status: BCP                                           A. Mankin
Expires: April 29, 2010                              Johns Hopkins Univ.
                                                                J. Touch
                                                                 USC/ISI
                                                           M. Westerlund
                                                                Ericsson
                                                        October 26, 2009


Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management
    of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry
                     draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-03

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.




Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other
   requests related to the transport protocol port number and service
   name registry.  It also discusses the rationale and principles behind
   these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability
   of the registry.

   This document updates RFC2780 by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
   that RFC, it updates the IANA allocation procedures for DCCP as
   defined in RFC4340, and it updates RFC2782 to clarify what a service
   name is and how it is registered.

























Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Conventions Used in this Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Service Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records  . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation . . . .  9
   7.  Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry
       Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Past Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Updated Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.3.  Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges  . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service
       Name Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.1.  Port Number and Service Name Registration  . . . . . . . . 14
     8.2.  Port Number and Service Name De-Registration . . . . . . . 16
     8.3.  Port Number and Service Name Re-Use  . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.4.  Port Number and Service Name Revocation  . . . . . . . . . 17
     8.5.  Port Number and Service Name Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 18
     8.6.  Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 20
     10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


















Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


1.  Introduction

   For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number
   values and service names for use with the Transmission Control
   Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
   [RFC0768] have had less than clear guidelines.  New transport
   protocols have been added - the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
   (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
   [RFC4342] - and new mechanisms have been developed (DNS SRV records
   [RFC2782]), each with separate registries and separate guidelines.
   The community recognized the need for additional procedures beyond
   just assignment; notably modification, revocation, and release.

   A key factor of this procedural streamlining is to establish
   identical registration procedures for all IETF transport protocols.
   This document brings the IANA procedures for TCP and UDP in line with
   those already for SCTP and DCCP, resulting in a single process that
   requesters and IANA follow for all requests for all transport
   protocols, including those not yet defined.

   In addition to detailing the IANA procedures for the initial
   assignment of port numbers and service names, this document also
   specifies post-assignment procedures that until now have been handled
   in an ad hoc manner.  These include procedures to de-register a port
   number that is no longer in use, to re-use a port number allocated
   for one application that is no longer in use for another application,
   and procedure by which IANA can unilaterally revoke a prior port
   number registration.  Section 8 discusses the specifics of these
   procedures and processes that requesters and IANA follow for all
   requests for all current and future transport protocols.

   It is important to note that ownership of registered port numbers and
   service names remains with IANA.  For protocols developed by IETF
   working groups, IANA now also offers a method for the "early"
   assignment of port numbers and service names [RFC4020], as described
   in Section 8.1.

   This document updates IANA's allocation guidelines [RFC2780] for UDP
   and TCP port numbers by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of [RFC2780].
   (Note that different sections of [RFC2780] were updated in February
   2008 by [RFC5237].)  This document also updates the IANA allocation
   procedures for DCCP as defined in [RFC4340].  It updates [RFC2782] to
   clarify what a service name is and how it is registered, because
   [RFC2782] simply refers to [RFC1700] when defining service names,
   which in turn contains now-obsolete copies [RFC3232] of various IANA
   registries [PORTREG][PROTSERVREG].





Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


2.  Motivation

   Information about the registration procedures for the port registry
   has existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number
   registrations on the IANA web site [SYSFORM] [USRFORM], an
   introductory text section in the file listing the port number
   registrations themselves [PORTREG], and two brief sections of the
   IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].

   Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been
   historically unclear.  Service names were originally created as
   mnemonic identifiers for port numbers without a well-defined syntax,
   beyond the 14-character limit mentioned on the IANA website [SYSFORM]
   [USRFORM].  Even that length limit has not been consistently applied,
   and some assigned service names are 15 characters long.  When service
   identification via DNS SRV RRs were introduced, the ambiguities in
   the syntactic definition of the service namespace, together with a
   requirement by IANA to only assign service names and port numbers in
   combination, led to the creation of an ad hoc service name registry
   outside of the control of IANA [SRVREG].

   It has also been historically unclear if the "name" entries
   registered in the "Protocol and Service Names Registry" [PROTSERVREG]
   can be used as service names.  [RFC0952] defines the names in that
   registry as either service names or protocol names.  It is likely
   that these names has been interpreted as being valid service names
   and consequently have been used, e.g., in SRV records.  This
   motivates why this document merges the 166 protocol and service names
   defined in that registry into the port number registry [PORTREG].

   This document aggregates all this scattered information into a single
   reference that aligns and clearly defines the management procedures
   for both port numbers and service names.  It gives more detailed
   guidance to prospective requesters of ports and service names than
   the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures
   for the management of the registry, so that management requests can
   complete in a timely manner.

   This document defines rules for registration of service names without
   associated port numbers, for such usages as DNS SRV records, which
   was not possible under the previous IANA procedures.  These new
   procedures also merge service name registrations from the non-IANA
   "ad hoc" registry [SRVREG] and from the the IANA "Protocol and
   Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] into the IANA "Port and Service
   Name" registry [PORTREG], which from here on is the single
   authoritative registry for service names and port numbers.

   An additional purpose of this document is to describe the principles



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   that guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint
   stewards of the port number registry.  TCP and UDP have been a
   remarkable success over the last decades.  Thousands of applications
   and application-level protocols have registered ports and service
   names for their use, and there is every reason to believe that this
   trend will continue into the future.  It is hence extremely important
   that management of the registry follow principles that ensure its
   long-term usefulness as a shared resource.  Section 7 discusses these
   principles in detail.


3.  Background

   The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User
   Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] have enjoyed a remarkable success
   over the decades as the two most widely used transport protocols on
   the Internet.  They have relied on the concept of "ports" as logical
   entities for Internet communication.  Ports serve two purposes:
   first, they provide a demultiplexing identifier to differentiate
   transport sessions between the same pair of endpoints, and second,
   they may also identify the application protocol and associated
   service to which processes bind.  Newer transport protocols, such as
   the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the
   Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4342] have 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 [RFC3828],
   a variant of UDP).

   Port numbers are the original and most widely used means for
   application and service identification on the Internet.  Ports are
   16-bit numbers, and the combination of source and destination port
   numbers together with the IP addresses of the communicating end
   systems uniquely identifies a session of a given transport protocol.
   Port numbers are also known by their corresponding service names such
   as "telnet" for port number 23 and both "http" and "www" for port
   number 80.

   Hosts running services, hosts accessing services on other hosts, and
   intermediate devices (such as firewalls and NATs) that restrict
   services need to agree on which service corresponds to a particular
   destination port.  Although this is ultimately a local decision with
   meaning only between the endpoints of a connection, most Internet
   components use a single, shared view of this association, provided by
   the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) through the port
   number registry [PORTREG].

   Over time, the assumption that a particular port number necessarily
   implies a particular service may become less true.  For example,



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   multiple instances of the same service can run on different ports on
   the same host, or NATs that support port mapping or registration
   [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp][UPnP] need to offer service instances using
   the same port on several internal hosts available to the public
   Internet on different ports.  This document assumes, however, that
   ports are most often used in a conventional manner - where endpoints
   and intermediate devices all share the common view of the IANA port
   number registry.

   Applications either use numeric port numbers directly, look up port
   numbers based on service names via system calls such as
   getservbyname() on 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 variety of other ways [RFC1078].

   Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply
   to IANA for an assigned port number and service name for a specific
   application, and may - after successful registration - assume that no
   other application will use that port number and service name for its
   communication sessions.  Alternatively, application designers may
   also only ask for an assigned service name, if their application does
   not require a fixed port number.  The latter alternative is
   encouraged when possible, in order to conserve the more limited port
   number space.  This includes, for example, applications that use DNS
   SRV records to look up port numbers at runtime, or transports that
   use service names not coupled to port numbers, e.g., TCP portnames
   [I-D.touch-tcp-portnames].


4.  Conventions Used in this Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].


5.  Service Names

   Service names are the unique key in the Port and Service Name
   registry.  This unique symbolic name for a service may also be used
   for other purposes, such as DNS SRV records [RFC2782].  Within the
   registry, this unique key ensures that different services can be
   unambiguously distinguished, thus preventing name collisions and
   avoiding confusion about who is the registration owner of a
   particular entry.

   For each service name, there may exist zero or more associated port



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   number assignments.  A port number assignment associated with a
   service name contains the transport protocol, port number and
   possibly additional data, such as a DCCP service code.  There may be
   more than one service name associated with a particular transport
   protocol and port.  This SHOULD only occur when all such service
   names are aliases for the same service, such as with "www" and
   "http".

   Service names are assigned on a "first come, first served" basis, as
   described in Section 8.1.  Names should be brief and informative,
   avoiding words or abbreviations that are redundant in the context of
   the registry (e.g., "port", "service", "protocol", etc.)  Names
   referring to discovery services, e.g., using multicast or broadcast
   to identify endpoints capable of a given service, SHOULD use an
   easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc").

5.1.  Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records

   [RFC2782] defines SRV records for the DNS system.  One part of the
   DNS name of an SRV record includes what is called "SERVICE", i.e., a
   symbolic name for the service.  This document updates [RFC2782] in
   order to clarify that the symbolic name ("SERVICE") SHALL only be a
   service name as defined in this document that has been registered
   with IANA and recorded in the port number and service name registry
   [PORTREG].  This to ensure that only a single registry exist and name
   collisions can be more easily avoided in the future.


6.  Port Number Ranges

   TCP, UDP (and UDP-Lite), SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for
   their port number registries.  The port registries for all these
   transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers, and
   Section 7.3 describes the IANA procedures for each range in detail:

   o  the Well Known Ports, also known as the System Ports, from 0-1023
      (assigned by IANA)

   o  the Registered Ports, also known as the User Ports, from 1024-
      49151 (assigned by IANA)

   o  the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private Ports, from 49152-
      65535 (never assigned)

   Of the assignable port ranges (Well Known and Registered, i.e., port
   numbers 0-49151), individual port numbers are in one of three states
   at any given time:




Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   o  Assigned: Assigned port numbers are currently allocated to the
      service indicated in the registry.

   o  Unassigned: Unassigned port numbers are currently available for
      assignment upon request, as per the procedures outlined in this
      document.

   o  Reserved: Reserved port numbers are not available for regular
      assignment; they are "assigned to IANA" for special purposes.
      Reserved port numbers include values at the edges of each range,
      e.g., 0, 1023, 1024, etc., which may be used to extend these
      ranges or the overall port number space in the future.

   In order to keep the size of the registry manageable, IANA typically
   only records the Assigned and Reserved port numbers and service names
   in the registry.  Unassigned values are typically not explicitly
   listed.

   As a data point, when this document was written, approximately 76% of
   the TCP and UDP Well Known Ports were assigned, and approximately 9%
   of the Registered Ports were assigned.  (As noted, Dynamic Ports are
   never assigned.)

6.1.  Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation

   Of the Well Known ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and
   1022), together with their respective service names ("exp1" and
   "exp2"), have been assigned for experimentation with new applications
   and application-layer protocols that require a port number in the
   assigned ports ranges [RFC4727].

   Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental and
   Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] for how these
   experimental port numbers are to be used.

   This document registers the same two port numbers and service names
   for experimentation with new application-layer protocols over SCTP
   and DCCP in Section 10.2.

   Unfortunately, it can be difficult to limit access to these ports.
   Users SHOULD take measures to ensure that experimental ports are
   connecting to the intended process.  For example, users of these
   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 byte-stream (e.g., TCP), which is used to confirm that the port
   is being used as intended.  Such confirmation of intended use is
   especially important when these ports are associated with privileged
   (e.g., system or administrator) processes.



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


7.  Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry Management

   Management procedures for the port number and service name registry
   include allocation of port numbers and service names upon request, as
   well as coordination of information about existing allocations.  The
   latter includes maintaining contact and description information about
   assignments, revoking abandoned assignments, and redefining
   assignments when needed.  Of these procedures, port number allocation
   is most critical, in order to continue to conserve the remaining port
   numbers.

   As noted earlier, only ~9% of the Registered Port space is currently
   assigned.  The current rate of assignment is approximately 400 ports/
   year, and has remained linear for the past 8 years.  At that rate, if
   similar conservation continues, this resource will sustain another 85
   years of assignment - without the need to resort to reassignment of
   released values or revocation.  Note that the namespace available for
   service names is even larger, which allows for a simpler management
   procedures.

7.1.  Past Principles

   Before the publication of this document, the principles of port
   number and service name management followed a few mostly undocumented
   guidelines.  They are recorded here for historical purposes, and this
   document updates them in Section 7.2.  These principles were:

   o  TCP and UDP ports were simultaneously allocated when either was
      requested

   o  Port numbers were the primary allocation; service names were
      informative only, and did not have a well-defined syntax

   o  Port numbers were conserved informally, and sometimes
      inconsistently (e.g., some services were allocated ranges of many
      port numbers even where not strictly necessary)

   o  SCTP and DCCP port number and service name registries were managed
      separately from the TCP/UDP registries

   o  Service names could not be assigned in the ports registry without
      assigning a corresponding port number at the same time

   This document attempts to document, clarify and align these
   guidelines in order to more conservatively manage the limited
   remaining port number space and to enable and promote the use of
   service names for service identification without associated port
   numbers, where possible.



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


7.2.  Updated Principles

   This section summarizes the basic principles by which IANA attempts
   to conserve the port number space.  This description is intended to
   inform applicants requesting port numbers.  IANA decisions are not
   required to be bound to these principles, however; other factors may
   come into play, and exceptions may occur where deemed in the best
   interest of the Internet.

   The basic principle of port number registry management is to conserve
   use of the port space where possible.  Extensions to support larger
   port number spaces would require changing many core protocols of the
   current Internet in a way that would not be backward compatible and
   interfere with both current and legacy applications.

   Conservation of the port number space recognizes that because this
   space is a limited resource, applications are expected to participate
   in the traffic demultiplexing process where feasible.  The port
   numbers are expected to encode as little information as possible that
   will still enable an application to perform further demultiplexing by
   itself.  In particular:

   o  IANA will allocate only one assigned port number per service or
      application

   o  IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all versions
      of a service (e.g., running the service with or without a security
      mechanism, or for updated variants of a service)

   o  IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all different
      types of devices using or participating in the same service

   o  IANA will allocate port numbers only for the transport protocols
      explicitly named in an registration request

   o  IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of
      de-registration, revocation, and transfer

   o  IANA may begin assigning service names that do not request a
      corresponding port number allocation under a simple "First Come,
      First Served" policy [RFC5226] (assignments involving port numbers
      still require "Expert Review")

   A given service is expected to further demultiplex messages where
   possible.  For example, applications and protocols are expected to
   include in-band version information, so that future versions of the
   application or protocol can share the same allocated port.
   Applications and protocols are also expected to be able to



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   efficiently use a single allocated port for multiple sessions, either
   by demultiplexing multiple streams within one port, or using the
   allocated port to coordinate using dynamic ports for subsequent
   exchanges (e.g., in the spirit of FTP [RFC0959]).

   Ports are used in various ways, notably:

   o  as endpoint process identifiers

   o  as application protocol identifiers

   o  for firewall filtering purposes

   The process and protocol identifier use suggests that anything a
   single process can demultiplex, or that can be encoded into a single
   protocol, should be.  The firewall filtering use suggests that some
   uses that could be de-multiplexed or encoded must be separated to
   allow for firewall management.  Note that this latter use is much
   less sound, because port numbers have meaning only for the two
   endpoints involved in a connection, and drawing conclusions about the
   service that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is
   inherently problematic.  Further, previous separation of protocol
   variants based on security capabilities (e.g., HTTP on port 80 vs.
   HTTPS on port 443) is not recommended for new protocols, because all
   should be security-capable and capable of negotiating the use of
   security in-band.

   IANA will begin assigning protocol numbers only for those transport
   protocols explicitly included in a registration request.  This ends
   the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number
   to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is only
   for one of these transport protocols.  The new allocation procedure
   conserves resources by only allocating a port number to an
   application for those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or
   DCCP) it actually uses.  The port number will be marked as Reserved -
   instead of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other
   transport protocols.  When applications start supporting the use of
   some of those additional transport protocols, their implementors MUST
   request IANA to convert the reservation into an assignment.  An
   application MUST NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to
   it for use with one transport protocol with another transport
   protocol without asking IANA to convert the reservation into an
   assignment.

   Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow
   previously allocated port numbers to become Unassigned, either
   through de-registration or through revocation, and by a procedure
   that lets application designers transfer an allocated but unused port



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   number to a new application.  Section 8 describes these procedures,
   which so far were undocumented.  Port number conservation is also
   improved by recommending that applications that do not require an
   allocated port, e.g., because they can use service-name-based
   lookups, chose this option and only register a service name.

7.3.  Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges

   Section 6 describes the different port number ranges.  It is
   important to note that IANA applies slightly different procedures
   when managing the different ranges of the port number registry:

   o  Ports in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) have been
      specifically set aside for local and dynamic use and cannot be
      registered through IANA.  Applications may simply use them for
      communication without any sort of registration.  On the other
      hand, applications MUST NOT assume that a specific port number in
      the Dynamic Ports range will always be available for communication
      at all times, and a port number in that range hence MUST NOT be
      used as a service identifier.

   o  Ports in the Registered Ports range (1024-49151) are available for
      registration through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers
      upon successful registration.  Because registering a port number
      for a specific application consumes a fraction of the shared
      resource that is the port number registry, IANA will require the
      requester to document the intended use of the port number.  This
      documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" allocation
      procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert
      review the request to determine whether to grant the registration.
      The submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number
      in the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given
      application.

   o  Ports in the Well Known Ports range (0-1023) are also available
      for registration through IANA.  Because the Well Known Ports range
      is both the smallest and the most densely allocated, the
      requirements for new allocations are more strict than those for
      the Registered Ports range, and will only be granted under the
      "IETF Review" allocation procedure [RFC5226].  A request for a
      Well Known port number MUST document why using a port number from
      both the Registered Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable
      for the given application.








Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


8.  IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service Name
    Registry

   This section describes the process for requests associated with
   IANA's management of the port number and service name registry.  Such
   requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use,
   changes to the service name, as well as updates to the contact
   information or description associated with an assignment.  Revocation
   is initiated by IANA.

8.1.  Port Number and Service Name Registration

   Registration refers to the allocation of port numbers or service
   names to applicants.  All such registrations are made from port
   numbers or service names that are Unassigned or Reserved at the time
   of the allocation.  Unassigned numbers and names are allocated as
   needed, and without further explanation.  Reserved numbers and names
   are assigned only after review by IANA and the IETF, and are
   accompanied by a statement explaining the reason a Reserved number or
   name is appropriate for this action.

   When a registration for one or more (but not all) transport protocols
   is approved, the port number for the non-requested transport
   protocol(s) will be marked as Reserved.  IANA SHOULD NOT assign that
   port number to any other application or service until no other port
   numbers remain Unassigned in the requested range.  The current
   registration owner of a port number MAY register these Reserved port
   numbers for other transport protocols when needed.

   Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific
   transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name
   (but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all
   transport protocols.

   A port number or service name registration consists of the following
   information:

   o  Registration Owner: Name and email address of the owner of the
      registration.  This is REQUIRED.  For registrations done through
      IETF-published RFCs, the registration ownership will belong to the
      IETF and not the technical contact persons.

   o  Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the
      technical contact person for the registration.  This is REQUIRED.
      For individuals, this is the same as the Registration Owner; for
      organizations, this is a point of contact at that organization.
      Additional address information MAY be provided.  For registrations
      done through IETF-published RFCs, one or more technical contact



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


      persons SHALL be provided.

   o  Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service
      associated with the registration request MUST be provided, for use
      in various service selection and discovery mechanisms (including,
      but not limited to, DNS SRV records [RFC2782]).  Valid service
      names MUST only contain these US-ASCII [ANSI.X3-4.1986]
      characters: letters from A to Z, digits from 0 to 9, and hyphens
      ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45).  They MUST be at least one
      character and no more than fifteen characters long, MUST NOT begin
      or end with a hyphen, and MUST NOT consist of only digits (in
      order to be distinguishable from port numbers, which are typically
      written as all digits).  In order to be unique, they MUST NOT be
      identical to any currently registered service names in the IANA
      registry [PORTREG].  Service names are case-insensitive; they may
      be provided and entered into the registry with mixed case (e.g.,
      for clarity), but for the purposes of comparison, the case is
      ignored.

   o  Port Number: If assignment of port number(s) is desired, either
      the currently Unassigned port number(s) the requester suggests for
      allocation or the tag "ANY" MUST be provided.  If only a service
      name is to be assigned, this field MUST be empty.  If specific
      port numbers are requested, IANA is encouraged to allocate the
      suggested numbers.  If the tag "ANY" is specified, IANA will
      choose a suitable number from the Registered Ports range.  Note
      that the applicant MUST NOT use the suggested ports prior to the
      completion of the registration.

   o  Transport Protocol: The transport protocol(s) for which the
      allocation is requested MUST be provided.  This field is currently
      limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.

   o  Service Code: A desired unique service code for the service
      associated with the registration request.  Service codes are
      specific to the DCCP protocol [I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes]; the
      request MUST include a desired service code when the registration
      requests includes DCCP as a transport protocol, and MUST NOT
      include one otherwise.

   o  Description: A short description of the service associated with
      the registration request is REQUIRED.  It should avoid all but the
      most well known acronyms.

   o  Reference: A reference document describing the protocol or
      application using this port, including whether the protocol
      supports either broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication.
      For registration requests for Registered Ports, this documentation



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


      MUST explain why a port number in the Dynamic Ports range is
      unsuitable for the given application.  For registration requests
      for Well Known Ports, this documentation MUST explain why a port
      number in the Registered Ports or Dynamic Ports ranges is
      unsuitable.

      "Early" registration requests can be made by IETF working groups
      without including such a reference document, although it is
      RECOMMENDED that at least a reference to an Internet Draft
      describing the work in progress is provided.

   When IANA receives a registration request containing the above
   information, they SHALL initiate an "Expert Review" [RFC5226] in
   order to determine whether an assignment should be made.  For
   requests for service names that do not include port number
   assignments, IANA MAY, at its discretion, skip the "Expert Review"
   procedure and assign the service name under a simple "First Come
   First Served" policy [RFC5226].

8.2.  Port Number and Service Name De-Registration

   The original requesters of a granted port number assignment can
   return the port number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a
   need for it.  The port number will be de-registered and will be
   marked as Reserved.  IANA should not re-assign port numbers that have
   been de-registered until all other available port numbers in the
   specific range have been assigned.

   Before proceeding with a port number de-registration, IANA needs to
   reasonably establish that the value is actually no longer in use.

   Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
   space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that a
   given service name remain assigned even after all associated port
   number assignments have become de-registered.  Under this policy, it
   will appear in the registry as if it had been created through a
   service name registration request that did not include any port
   numbers.

   On rare occasions, it may still be useful to de-register a service
   name.  In such cases, IANA will mark the service name as Reserved.
   IANA will involve their IESG-appointed expert in such cases.

8.3.  Port Number and Service Name Re-Use

   If the original requesters of a granted port number assignment no
   longer have a need for the registered number, but would like to re-
   use it for a different application, they can submit a request to IANA



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   to do so.

   Logically, port number re-use is to be thought of as a de-
   registration (Section 8.2) followed by an immediate re-registration
   (Section 8.1) of the same port number for a new application.
   Consequently, the 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 new port number allocation for the specific
   ports range.

   Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
   space compared to the port number space, it is RECOMMENDED that the
   original service name associated with the prior use of the port
   number remains assigned, and a new service be created and associated
   with the port number.  This is again consistent with viewing a re-use
   request as a de-registration followed by an immediate re-
   registration.  Re-using an assigned service name for a different
   application is NOT RECOMMENDED.

   IANA needs to carefully review such requests before approving them.
   In some instances, the Expert Reviewer will determine that the
   application that the port number was assigned to has found usage
   beyond the original requester, or that there is a concern that it may
   have such users.  This determination MUST be made quickly.  A
   community call concerning revocation of a port number (see below) MAY
   be considered, if a broader use of the port number is suspected.

8.4.  Port Number and Service Name Revocation

   A port number revocation can be thought of as an IANA-initiated de-
   registration (Section 8.2), and has exactly the same effect on the
   registry.

   Sometimes, it will be clear that a specific port number is no longer
   in use and that IANA can revoke it and mark it as Reserved.  At other
   times, it may be unclear whether a given assigned port number is
   still in use somewhere in the Internet.  In those cases, IANA must
   carefully consider the consequences of revoking the port number, and
   SHOULD only do so if there is an overwhelming need.

   With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL
   formulate a request to the IESG to issue a four-week community call
   concerning the pending port number revocation.  The IESG and IANA,
   with the Expert Reviewer's support, SHALL determine promptly after
   the end of the community call whether revocation should proceed and
   then communicate their decision to the community.  This procedure
   typically involves similar steps to de-registration except that it is
   initiated by IANA.



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   Because there is much less danger of exhausting the service name
   space compared to the port number space, revoking service names is
   NOT RECOMMENDED.

8.5.  Port Number and Service Name Transfers

   The value of port numbers and service names is defined by their
   careful management as a shared Internet resource, whereas enabling
   transfer allows the potential for associated monetary exchanges.  As
   a result, the IETF does not permit port number or service name
   assignments to be transferred between parties, even when they are
   mutually consenting.

   The appropriate alternate procedure is a coordinated de-registration
   and registration: The new party requests the port number or service
   name via a registration and the previous party releases its
   assignment via the de-registration procedure outlined above.

   With the help of their IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer, IANA SHALL
   carefully determine if there is a valid technical, operational or
   managerial reason before performing the transfer.

8.6.  Maintenance Issues

   The previous procedures help IANA manage the defining properties of
   the port name and service name registry.  There are additional
   procedures which are administrative and help IANA maintain non-
   defining information in a registration.  This includes changes to the
   Port Description and changes to Technical Contact information.  (Note
   that Registration Owner cannot be changed; see Section 8.5 above.)
   These changes are coordinated by IANA in an informal manner, and may
   be initiated by either the registrant or by IANA, e.g., the latter
   when requesting an update to current contact information.


9.  Security Considerations

   The IANA guidelines described in this document do not change the
   security properties of UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP.

   Assignment of a port number or service name does not in any way imply
   an endorsement of an application or product, and the fact that
   network traffic is flowing to or from a registered port number does
   not mean that it is "good" traffic, or even that it is used by the
   assigned service.  Firewall and system administrators should choose
   how to configure their systems based on their knowledge of the
   traffic in question, not whether there is a port number or service
   name registered or not.



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   Services are expected to include support for security, either as
   default or dynamically negotiated in-band.  The use of separate port
   number or service name assignments for secure and insecure variants
   of the same service is to be avoided in order to discourage the
   deployment of insecure services.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of the March 2000 IANA
   Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to contact the
   maintainer of the [SRVREG] registry, in order to merge the contents
   of that private registry into the official IANA registry.  It is
   expected that the contents of [SRVREG] will at that time be replaced
   with pointers to the IANA registry and to this RFC.

   Similarly, IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in
   the port number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the "Protocol and
   Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not already have one
   assigned.  After that, IANA should investigate if the "Protocol and
   Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] can be retired.

10.1.  Service Name Consistency

   Section 8.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service
   names, which until now had not been clearly defined.  The definition
   in Section 8.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service
   names with current and future service discovery mechanisms.

   As of August 5, 2009 approximately 98% of the so-called "Short Names"
   from existing port number registrations [PORTREG] meet the rules for
   legal service names stated in Section 8.1, and hence will be used
   unmodified.

   The remaining approximately 2% of the exiting "Short Names" are not
   suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because
   they contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, plusses,
   slashes, or underscores.  All existing "Short Names" conform to the
   length requirement of 15 characters or less.  For these unsuitable
   "Short Names", listed in the table below, the service name will be
   the Short Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens.  IANA
   SHALL add an alias to the registry that assigns a well-formed service
   name for the existing service but otherwise duplicates the original
   assignment information.  In the description field of the new alias,
   IANA SHALL record that it assigns a well-formed service name for the
   previous service and point to the original assignment.  In the



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   description field of the original assignment, IANA SHALL add a note
   that the service name is historic, is not usable with many common
   service discovery mechanisms, and provide a reference to the new
   alias, which can be used in this way.

   Names containing illegal characters to be replaced by hyphens:

          +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
          | 914c/g         | acmaint_dbd     | acmaint_transd  |
          | atex_elmd      | avanti_cdp      | badm_priv       |
          | badm_pub       | bdir_priv       | bdir_pub        |
          | bmc_ctd_ldap   | bmc_patroldb    | boks_clntd      |
          | boks_servc     | boks_servm      | broker_service  |
          | bues_service   | canit_store     | cedros_fds      |
          | cl/1           | contamac_icm    | corel_vncadmin  |
          | csc_proxy      | cvc_hostd       | dbcontrol_agent |
          | dec_dlm        | dl_agent        | documentum_s    |
          | dsmeter_iatc   | dsx_monitor     | elpro_tunnel    |
          | elvin_client   | elvin_server    | encrypted_admin |
          | erunbook_agent | erunbook_server | esri_sde        |
          | EtherNet/IP-1  | EtherNet/IP-2   | event_listener  |
          | flr_agent      | gds_db          | ibm_wrless_lan  |
          | iceedcp_rx     | iceedcp_tx      | iclcnet_svinfo  |
          | idig_mux       | ife_icorp       | instl_bootc     |
          | instl_boots    | intel_rci       | interhdl_elmd   |
          | lan900_remote  | LiebDevMgmt_A   | LiebDevMgmt_C   |
          | LiebDevMgmt_DM | mapper-ws_ethd  | matrix_vnet     |
          | mdbs_daemon    | menandmice_noh  | msl_lmd         |
          | nburn_id       | ncr_ccl         | nds_sso         |
          | netmap_lm      | nms_topo_serv   | notify_srvr     |
          | novell-lu6.2   | nuts_bootp      | nuts_dem        |
          | ocs_amu        | ocs_cmu         | pipe_server     |
          | pra_elmd       | printer_agent   | redstorm_diag   |
          | redstorm_find  | redstorm_info   | redstorm_join   |
          | resource_mgr   | rmonitor_secure | rsvp_tunnel     |
          | sai_sentlm     | sge_execd       | sge_qmaster     |
          | shiva_confsrvr | sql*net         | srvc_registry   |
          | stm_pproc      | subntbcst_tftp  | udt_os          |
          | universe_suite | veritas_pbx     | vision_elmd     |
          | vision_server  | wrs_registry    | z39.50          |
          +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

   In the case of "whois++", the service name will be "whoisplusplus".

10.2.  Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation

   Two Well Known UDP and TCP ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved
   for experimental use [RFC4727].  This document registers the same



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   port numbers for SCTP and DCCP, and also instructs IANA to
   automatically register these two port numbers for any new transport
   protocol that will in the future share the port number namespace.

   Note that these port numbers are meant for temporary experimentation
   and development in controlled environments.  Before using these port
   numbers, carefully consider the advice in Section 6.1 in this
   document, as well as in Sections 1 and 1.1 of "Assigning Experimental
   and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692].  Most importantly,
   application developers must request a permanent port number
   assignment from IANA as described in Section 8.1 before any kind of
   non-experimental deployment.

      +--------------------------------+----------------------------+
      | Registration Technical Contact | IESG <iesg@ietf.org>       |
      | Registration Owner             | IETF <iesg@ietf.org>       |
      | Transport Protocol             | SCTP, DCCP                 |
      | Port Number                    | 1021                       |
      | Port Name                      | RFC3692-style Experiment 1 |
      | Service Name                   | exp1                       |
      | Reference                      | [RFCyyyy]                  |
      +--------------------------------+----------------------------+

      +--------------------------------+----------------------------+
      | Registration Technical Contact | IESG <iesg@ietf.org>       |
      | Registration Owner             | IETF <iesg@ietf.org>       |
      | Transport Protocol             | SCTP, DCCP                 |
      | Port Number                    | 1022                       |
      | Port Name                      | RFC3692-style Experiment 2 |
      | Service Name                   | exp2                       |
      | Reference                      | [RFCyyyy]                  |
      +--------------------------------+----------------------------+

   [RFC Editor Note: Please change "yyyy" to the RFC number allocated to
   this document before publication.]

10.3.  Updates to DCCP Registries

   This document updates the IANA allocation procedures for the DCCP
   Port Number and DCCP Service Codes Registries [RFC4340].

10.3.1.  DCCP Service Code Registry

   Service Codes are allocated first-come-first-served according to
   Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification [RFC4340].  This document
   updates that section by extending the guidelines given there in the
   following ways:




Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   o  IANA MAY assign new Service Codes without seeking Expert Review
      using their discretion, but SHOULD seek expert review if a request
      seeks more than five Service Codes.

   o  IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer with
      questions on any registry, regardless of the registry policy, for
      clarification or if there is a problem with a request [RFC4340].

10.3.2.  DCCP Port Numbers Registry

   The DCCP ports registry is defined by Section 19.9 of the DCCP
   specification [RFC4340].  Allocations in this registry require prior
   allocation of a Service Code.  Not all Service Codes require IANA-
   registered ports.  This document updates that section by extending
   the guidelines given there in the following way:

   o  IANA should normally assign a value in the range 1024-49151 to a
      DCCP server port.  IANA allocation requests to allocate port
      numbers in the Well Known Ports range (0 through 1023), require an
      "IETF Review" [RFC5226] prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340].

   o  IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than
      one DCCP server port.

   o  The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server port
      should be recorded in the ports registry.

   o  A request for additional Service Codes to be associated with an
      already allocated Port Number requires Expert Review.  These
      requests will normally be accepted when they originate from the
      contact associated with the port registration.  In other cases,
      these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port,
      when this is available.

   The DCCP specification [RFC4340] notes that a short port name MUST be
   associated with each DCCP server port that has been registered.  This
   document requires that this name MUST be unique.


11.  Acknowledgments

   The text in Section 10.3 is based on a suggestion by Tom Phelan.

   Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project [TRILOGY], a
   research project supported by the European Commission under its
   Seventh Framework Program.





Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [ANSI.X3-4.1986]
              American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
              Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
              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,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2780]  Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
              Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
              BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

   [RFC3828]  Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and
              G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol
              (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.

   [RFC4020]  Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
              Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020,
              February 2005.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.

   [RFC4727]  Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
              ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd]
              Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05 (work in
              progress), September 2008.

   [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]



Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


              Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
              draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-dccp-serv-codes]
              Fairhurst, G., "The DCCP Service Code",
              draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-11 (work in progress),
              May 2009.

   [I-D.touch-tcp-portnames]
              Touch, J., "A TCP Option for Port Names",
              draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00 (work in progress),
              April 2006.

   [PORTREG]  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Port Numbers
              Registry",  http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.

   [PROTSERVREG]
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Protocol and
              Service Names Registry",
               http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names.

   [RFC0952]  Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet
              host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985.

   [RFC0959]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
              STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.

   [RFC1078]  Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)",
              RFC 1078, November 1988.

   [RFC1700]  Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
              October 1994.

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.

   [RFC3232]  Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
              an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.

   [RFC3692]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
              Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.

   [RFC4342]  Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
              Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
              Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
              March 2006.




Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.

   [RFC5237]  Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for
              the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008.

   [SRVREG]   "DNS SRV Service Types Registry",
               http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html.

   [SYSFORM]  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
              for System (Well Known) Port Number",
               http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl.

   [TRILOGY]  "Trilogy Project",  http://www.trilogy-project.org/.

   [UPnP]     UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) V 1.0",
              November 2001.

   [USRFORM]  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
              for User (Registered) Port Number",
               http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl.


Authors' Addresses

   Michelle Cotton
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
   Marina del Rey, CA  90292
   USA

   Phone: +1 310 823 9358
   Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org
   URI:   http://www.iana.org/


   Lars Eggert
   Nokia Research Center
   P.O. Box 407
   Nokia Group  00045
   Finland

   Phone: +358 50 48 24461
   Email: lars.eggert@nokia.com
   URI:   http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/






Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft   Port Number and Service Name Procedures    October 2009


   Allison Mankin
   Johns Hopkins University

   Phone: +1 301 728 7199
   Email: mankin@psg.com
   URI:   http://www.psg.com/~mankin/


   Joe Touch
   USC/ISI
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina del Rey, CA  90292
   USA

   Phone: +1 310 448 9151
   Email: touch@isi.edu
   URI:   http://www.isi.edu/touch


   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Torshamsgatan 23
   Stockholm  164 80
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 8 719 0000
   Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
























Cotton, et al.           Expires April 29, 2010                [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/