Transport Area Working Group                                   M. Cotton
Internet Draft
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Updates: 2780, 4340 (if approved)                                            L. Eggert
(if approved)                                                      Nokia
Intended status: BCP                                              Nokia
Expires: May 2009                                           A. Mankin
Expires: February 12, 2010                           Johns Hopkins Univ.
                                                          M. Westerlund
                                                               Ericsson
                                                                J. Touch
                                                                 USC/ISI
                                                       November 3, 2008

       IANA
                                                           M. Westerlund
                                                                Ericsson
                                                         August 11, 2009

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management
    of the Transport Protocol Port Number Space
                    draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-01.txt and Service Name Registry
                     draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-02

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of which he BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or she is
   aware have been IETF Contributions published or will 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 disclosed, modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and any
   derivative works of which he or she
   becomes aware will it may not be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
   BCP 79. 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
   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
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2009. February 12, 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 IANA procedures for registering port number
   values for use with that the Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other
   requests related to the various IETF transport protocols, including
   TCP, UDP, DCCP, protocol port number and SCTP. service
   name registry.  It provides clear also discusses the rationale and principles behind
   these procedures for and how they facilitate the
   management long-term sustainability
   of the port number registry, which is important for its
   long-term management.  It registry.

   This document updates RFC2780 by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
   that RFC, and it updates the IANA allocation procedures for DCCP as
   defined in RFC4340.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................2  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Conventions used Used in this document..............................4 Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Port Number Types..............................................5
      3.1. Assigned Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation.................5
   4. Experimentation . . . .  7
   5.  Principles for Port Number Space Management....................6
      4.1. and Service Name Registry
       Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Basic Principles of Port Conservation.....................7
      4.2. Principles Number Conservation . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Variances for Specific to Individual Port Number Ranges......8
      4.3. Ranges  . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  New Principles............................................9
   5. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number Space............10
      5.1. and Service
       Name Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Port Number Registration.................................10
      5.2. or Service Name Registration . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.2.  Port Number De-Registration..............................12
      5.3. and Service Name De-Registration . . . . . . . 14
     6.3.  Port Number Re-Use.......................................12
      5.4. and Service Name Re-Use  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.4.  Port Number Revocation...................................12
      5.5. and Service Name Revocation  . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.5.  Port Number Transfer.....................................13
      5.6. and Service Name Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.6.  Maintenance Issues.......................................13
   6. Port Number Space Requests....................................13
      6.1. Request Procedure........................................13 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Security Considerations.......................................14 Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  IANA Considerations...........................................14 Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.  Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     8.2.  Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 18
     8.3.  Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   9. Acknowledgments...............................................15  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   10. References...................................................16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     10.1. Normative References....................................16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     10.2. Informative References..................................16
   APPENDIX A: Updates to DCCP Registries...........................19
      A.1. DCCP Service Code Registry...............................19
      A.1. DCCP Port Numbers Registry.....Error! Bookmark not defined. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.  Introduction

   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 introduced 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 also identify the application protocol and associated service to
   which processes bind [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines]. 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 port numbers in the
   same way as TCP and UDP.  UDP-Lite [RFC3828], a variant of UDP, is
   also making use of UDP port numbers.  For the purposes of this
   document, all rules stated for UDP also apply to UDP-Lite, because it
   uses the same assignments as UDP.

   Port numbers are the original and most widely used means for
   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 can be a local decision 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 [REGISTRY].

   Applications either use numeric port numbers directly, look up port
   numbers based on service names via system calls such as
   getservbyname() on UNIX, or - more recently - use service names to
   look up a service resource records (SRV RRs) [RFC2782] via the Domain
   Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] in a variety of ways [RFC1078]
   [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd][I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] to
   obtain the port number of a given service.

   Designers of applications and application-level protocols may apply
   to IANA for a registered an assigned port number and service name for a specific
   application, and may - after successful registration - assume that no
   other application will use that service 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 port number.  The latter alternative is encouraged when
   possible, in order to conserve the more limited port number space.
   It is important to note that ownership of registered port numbers and
   service names remains with IANA.

   For many years, protocols developed by IETF working groups, IANA offers a method
   for the allocation and
   registration "early" assignment of new port number values for use numbers and service names, in line
   with [RFC4020], as described in Section 6.1.

   This document updates [RFC2780] by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
   that RFC.  Note that [RFC5237] updates a different subset of the IANA
   allocation guidelines originally given in [RFC2780] (specifically,
   the policies on the namespace of the IP protocol number and IPv6 next
   header).

2.  Conventions Used in this Document

   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].

3.  Motivation

   For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number
   values and service names for use with TCP and UDP have had less than
   clear guidelines.  Information about the registration procedures for
   the port namespace registry existed in three locations: the forms for
   requesting port number registrations on the IANA web site
   [SYSFORM][USRFORM], [SYSFORM]
   [USRFORM], an introductory text section in the file listing the port
   number registrations themselves [REGISTRY], and two brief sections of
   [RFC2780].

   Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been
   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 became popular, 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 [SRVTYPE].

   This document aggregates this scattered information into a single
   reference that aligns and at the same time clarifies the guidelines for clearly defines the management of the procedures
   for both port number space. 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 port
   number space, registry, so that management requests can
   complete in a timely manner.  It also merges the service name
   registrations that have occurred in the ad-hoc [SRVTYPE] registry
   into the IANA registry [REGISTRY], because under the new IANA
   guidelines, registering service names without port numbers has become
   possible.

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

   A second purpose of this document is to describe the principles that
   guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint stewards
   of the port number space. registry.  TCP and UDP have been a remarkable
   success over the last decades.  Thousands of applications and application-
   level
   application-level protocols have registered ports for 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 port
   number space registry follow principles that ensure its long-term long-
   term usefulness as a shared resource.  Section 4 5 discusses these
   principles in detail.  Guidelines for users seeking port numbers, as well as a
   detailed history of the port number registry and alternate means for
   coordinating host agreement on service-to-port-number mappings, is
   provided in a companion document [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines].

   In addition to detailing the IANA procedures for the initial
   assignment of port numbers, numbers and service names, this document also
   specifies post-
   assignment post-assignment procedures that until now have been handled
   in an ad hoc 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 5 6 discusses the specifics of these
   procedures.

   This document also addresses two technical issues related to the
   ports registry that are tangential to long-term stewardship.  First,
   it clarifies that a method for the early allocation of port numbers
   is available for IETF working groups, in line with [RFC4020].
   Second, it discusses how the use of symbolic names for assigned ports
   (the "keyword" field in [REGISTRY]) for Service Resource Records (SRV
   RRs) in the Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC2782] relates to the use of
   SRV RRs for applications without an assigned port.

   This document updates [RFC2780] by obsoleting Sections 8 and 9.1 of
   RFC.  Note that [RFC5237] updates a different subset of the IANA
   allocation guidelines originally given in [RFC2780] (specifically,
   the policies on the namespace of the IP protocol number and IPv6 next
   header).

2. Conventions used in this document

   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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

3.

4.  Port Number Types 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 6 5.2 describes the IANA procedures for each range in detail:

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

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

   o  the Dynamic Ports, i.e., also known as the Private Ports, from 49152-65535 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:

   1.

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

   2.

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

   3.

   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.

   When

   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, as were a significant
   fraction of the Registered Ports.  (As noted, Dynamic Ports are never
   assigned.)

3.1. Assigned

4.1.  Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation

   Of the Well-Known Ports, Well Known ports, two TCP and UDP port numbers (1021 and 1022)
   have been
   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]. [sctp-dccp-exp]

   The experimental ports 1021  This document registers the same
   two port numbers and 1022 service names for experimentation with new
   application-layer protocols over SCTP and DCCP in Section 8.2.

   Please refer to Sections 1 and 1.1 of [RFC3692] for how these
   experimental port numbers are to be used.  Specifically, they SHOULD
   only be used for local experiments only in controlled environments, and
   they SHOULD NOT be used on the global Internet.  Many new
   applications and application-
   layer application-layer protocols can be experimented with
   without requiring a port in the Well-Known Well Known or Registered Ports ports range,
   and port numbers in the Dynamic Ports range can be also used.

   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.

4.

5.  Principles for Port Number Space and Service Name Registry Management

   Management procedures for the port number space 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 assigned ports,
   assignments, revoking abandoned
   ports, assignments, and redefining port allocations
   assignments when needed.  Of these procedures, port number allocation
   is most critical, because of the limited number of remaining port
   numbers.  The namespace available for service names is much larger,
   which allows for simpler management procedures.

   Before the publication of this document, the principles of port
   number space allocation and service name management followed some simple, mostly
   undocumented guidelines:

   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 need to be unique 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 spaces registries were managed
      separately from the TCP/UDP spaces registries

   o  Until recently, service names could not be assigned without
      assigning a corresponding port number
   This document attempts to update document, clarify and align these
   guidelines in order to more conservatively manage the limited
   remaining TCP and UDP port number
   spaces, recognizes the potential use of service names in the absence
   of corresponding port number allocations, such as in SCTP and DCCP.

   The basic principle of port number registry management is to conserve
   the 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.

   Port numbers are intended to indicate a service and enable process
   demultiplexing at an endpoint; uses beyond those basic requirements
   should be avoided [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines].  This document
   also focuses on service names as a unique identifier, to increase the
   space available (from 4 bytes to 14), and to enable their use in promote the
   absence use of corresponding
   service names for service identification without associated port number assignments.

4.1.
   numbers, where possible.

5.1.  Basic Principles of Port Number Conservation

   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.

   Conservation

   The basic principle of the port number space recognizes that because this
   space 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 multiplexing demultiplexing by
   itself.  In particular, there should be:

   o  only one assigned port number per service or application

   o  only one assigned port number for all versions of a service

   o (e.g.,
      running the same service with or without a security mechanism)

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

   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
   efficiently use a single allocated port, 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]).

   These principles of port conservation are explained in [I-D.touch-
   tsvwg-port-guidelines].  That document explains in further detail how
   ports

   Ports are used in various ways, notably:

   o  Endpoint  as endpoint process identifier identifiers

   o  Application  as application protocol identifier identifiers

   o  Firewall  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 of a connection (again, as discussed in detail involved in [I-
   D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines]).

4.2. Principles a connection, and drawing conclusions about the
   service that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is
   inherently problematic.

5.2.  Variances for Specific to Individual Port Number Ranges

   Section 4 describes the different port number ranges.  It is
   important to note that different IANA applies slightly different procedures apply to
   when managing the different ranges of the port number registry.  Section 6 discusses
   the details of these procedures; this section outlines the rationale
   for these differences: 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, and number.  This
      documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" allocation
      procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert
      review this documentation the request to determine whether to grant the registration request.  This 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 one, the bar
      for new allocations is higher than that for the Registered Ports
      range (1024-49551).
      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 in from both the Registered Ports or
      and Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable.

4.3. unsuitable for the given application.

5.3.  New Principles

   Several new practices stem from the conservation principle that
   guides management of the port numbers number and service name registry, and
   will take effect with the approval of this document:

   o  IANA will allocate port numbers only to the transport protocols
      requested
      explicitly named in an allocation request

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

   o  IANA will begin assigning service names without requiring a
      corresponding port number allocation

   IANA will begin assigning protocol numbers only for those transport
   protocols explicitly included in a registration request.  This ends
   the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number
   to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is only
   for one of these transport protocols.  The new allocation procedure
   conserves resources by only allocating a port number to an
   application for those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or
   DCCP) it actually uses.  The port number will be marked as reserved Reserved -
   instead of assigned Assigned - in the port number registries of the other
   transport protocols.  When applications start supporting the use of
   some of those additional transport protocols, they must 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
   another registration with IANA.  The reason for this procedure is asking IANA to
   allow allocation of reserved port numbers on the day convert the range has no
   more unassigend values. [port-reserv] reservation into an
   assignment.

   Conservation for the of port numbers registry is improved by procedures that allow
   previously allocated port numbers to become unassigned, Unassigned, either
   through de-registration or through revocation, and by a procedure
   that lets application designers transfer an allocated but unused port
   number to a new application.  Section 5 6 describes these procedures,
   which so far were undocumented.

5.  Port number conservation is also
   improved by recommending that applications that do not require an
   allocated port, e.g., because they can use service-name-based
   lookups, chose this option and only register a service name.

6.  IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number Space

   IANA supports various procedures to manage and Service Name
    Registry

   This section describes the process for requests associated with
   IANA's management of the port number space that
   enable ports to be registered, de-registered, reused, and revoked.
   This section explains these procedures, service name registry.  Such
   requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use,
   changes to the service name, as well as other related
   issues.

5.1. updates to the contact
   information or description associated with an assignment.  Revocation
   is initiated by IANA.

6.1.  Port Number or Service Name Registration

   Registration refers to the allocation of port numbers or service
   names to applicants.  All such 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 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 remain unassigned but is be marked as reserved.
   However, Reserved.  IANA SHOULD NOT assign that
   port number to any other application or service until no other port
   numbers remain unassigned Unassigned in the
   request requested range.  The current
   registration owner of a port number MAY register the same these Reserved port number
   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 tuple:
   information:

   o  Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the
      technical contact person for the registration.  This is REQUIRED.
      Additional address information MAY be provided.  For registrations
      done through IETF-published RFCs, one or more technical contact
      persons SHALL be provided.

   o  Registration Owner: Name and email address of the owner of the
      registration.  This is REQUIRED.  For individuals, this is the
      same as the registration technical contact; for organizations,
      this is a point of contact at that organization.  For
      registrations done through IETF-published RFCs, the registration
      ownership will belong to the IETF and not the technical contact
      persons.

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

   o  Port Number:  The If assignment of port number(s) is desired, either
      the currently unassigned Unassigned port number(s) the requester suggests for allocation.
      allocation or the tag "ANY" MUST be provided.  If specified and when
      possible, 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 number. numbers.  If
      not 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  Broadcast, Multicast or Anycast:  Indicates whether the protocol
      supports either broadcast, multicast, or anycast network layer
      addresses.

   o  Port Name:  The long name (description) of the port.  It should
      avoid all but the most well known acronyms.

   o  Service Name:  This short A desired unique service name for the port number, used service
      associated with the registration request, for use in various
      service selection and discovery mechanisms, currently
      including TCPMUX [RFC1078] and DNS SRV resource records [RFC2782].
      This name is limited to 14 bytes, case-insensitive MUST be provided.
      Valid service names MUST only contain these US-ASCII
      letters, digits,
      [ANSI.X3-4.1986] characters: letters from A to Z, digits from 0 to
      9, and dashes.  It hyphens ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45).  They MUST be at
      MOST fifteen characters long, MUST NOT conflict begin or end with already
      allocated a hyphen,
      and MUST NOT consist of only digits, in order to be
      distinguishable from port numbers.  In order to be unique, they
      MUST NOT be identical to any currently registered service names in
      the service name IANA registry [REGISTRY].  Service names are case-insensitive;
      they may be provided and entered into the registry [serv-nam-reg]. with mixed case
      (e.g., for clarity), but for the purposes of comparison, the case
      is ignored.

   o  Service Code: A desired unique service code for the service
      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. port, including whether the protocol
      supports either broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication.
      For registration requests for Registered Ports, this documentation
      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.

   The following rules apply

      "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 port number registry database
   maintained by IANA: [database-rules]

   o  Service Names MUST be unique.

   o  Service Name MUST exist for all transport protocols.

   o  Port Number MUST exist for TCP and UDP; it MAY exist for SCTP and
      DCCP.

   o  Transport Protocol MUST exist for all entries.

   o  Service Code MUST NOT occur for TCP, UDP or SCTP, and MUST occur
      for DCCP.

   o  Port Name MUST exist for all entries.

   o  Currently valid Registration Contact SHOULD exist for all entries;
      it MUST exist for all new entries.

   o  Reference SHOULD exist for all entries.

5.2. Port Number De-Registration

   The original requesters of a granted work in progress is provided.

6.2.  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 [res-vs-unass]. 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 port number value is actually no longer in use.

5.3.

   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.  It will afterwards
   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.

6.3.  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
   to do so.

   Logically, port number re-use is to be thought of as a de-
   registration (Section 6.2) followed by an immediate re-registration
   (Section 6.1) 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.

5.4.

6.4.  Port Number and Service Name Revocation

   Sometimes, it will be clear that a specific

   A port number is no longer
   in revocation can be thought of as an IANA-initiated de-
   registration (Section 6.2), 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 de-register revoke it and mark it as reserved [res-
   vs-unass2]. 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, despite the requester's wish to de-register, IANA must
   carefully consider the consequences that de-registering of revoking the port number. 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.

5.5.

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

6.5.  Port Number Transfer 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 to motivate this
   management. exchanges.  As
   a result, current IANA procedures do not permit port number or
   service name assignments to be transferred between parties, even when
   they are mutually consenting.

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

5.6.

   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.

6.6.  Maintenance Issues

   The previous procedures help IANA manage the defining properties of
   the port name space. and service name registry.  There are additional
   procedures which are
   administrative, administrative and help IANA maintain non-defining non-
   defining information in a registration.  This includes changes to the
   Port Name (i.e.,
   description), Description and changes to contact information.  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.

6. Port Number Space Requests

   This section describes

7.  Security Considerations

   The IANA guidelines described in this document do not change the process for requests associated with
   IANA's management
   security properties of the the port number space.  Such requests
   include initial registration, de-registration, re-use, changes to the
   service name, as well as updates to the contact information or port
   name (description).  Revocation is initiated by IANA.

6.1. Request Procedure

All registration requests for a either TCP, SCTP, DCCP and/or UDP ports must
contain the following pieces or UDP.

   Assignment of information:

   o  Port number tuple:  A a port number tuple, as described or service name does not in Section
      5.1. The port number would typically be omitted; when provided, it
      indicates a preference for requesting a currently unassigned
      value.

   o  Port Range:  Indicates the port range desired (i.e., Well Known
      Ports or Registered Ports).

   o  Requested Action:  One of REGISTER, DEREGISTER, REUSE,
      SVC_NAME_CHANGE, or UPDATE_INFO (port name, registration contact).

   The Well Known Ports are assigned by IANA and cover the range 0-1023.
   On many systems, they can only be used by system (or root) processes
   or by programs executed by privileged users.  Registration requests
   for a Well Known port number MUST follow the "IETF Review" policy of
   [RFC5226].  Registrations for a port number in this range MUST
   document why a port number in the Registered Ports range will not
   fulfill the application needs.

   The Registered Ports are assigned by IANA and on most systems can be
   used by ordinary user processes or programs executed by ordinary
   users.  The Registered Ports are in the range 1024-49151.
   Registration requests for a Registered Port number MUST follow the
   "Expert Review" policy of [RFC5226].

7. Security Considerations

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

   Assignment of a port number 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 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.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document obsoletes Sections 8 and 9.1 of [RFC2780].  Upon
   approval of this document, IANA is requested to adopt the procedures
   described herein.

8.1.  Service Name Consistency

   Section 6.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service
   names, which until now had not been clearly defined.  The definition
   on Section 6.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service
   names with various service discovery mechanisms.

   Unfortunately, the current port number registry [REGISTRY] contains a
   few assigned service names that do not conform to the new naming
   rules.  In all cases, this is because they contain illegal characters
   such as asterisks, dots, plusses, slashes, or underscores.  (All
   current service names conform to the length requirement of 15
   characters or less.)

   Upon approval of this document, IANA should SHALL take immediate actions to
   resolve inconsistencies raised
   by requirements of this document.

9. Acknowledgments

   The text in Appendix A is based on these inconsistencies.  For any registry assignment with an
   illegal service name, IANA SHALL add an alias to the registry that
   assigns a suggestion by Tom Phelan.

   Lars Eggert well-formed service name for the existing service but
   otherwise duplicates the original assignment information.  It is partly funded
   desirable if the alias closely resembles the original service name,
   e.g., by [TRILOGY], remapping underscores to dashes, etc.  In the description
   field of the new alias, IANA SHALL record that it assigns a research project
   supported by well-
   formed service name for the European Commission previous service and point to the
   original assignment.  In the description field of the original
   assignment, IANA SHALL add a note that the service name is historic,
   is not usable with many common service discovery mechanisms, and
   provide a reference to the new alias, which can be used in this way.

   As of 2009-8-5 [REGISTRY], these service names were illegal under its Seventh Framework
   Program.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

   [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 the
   rules stated in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2780] Bradner, S. Section 6.1:

          +-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
          | 914c/g          | EtherNet/IP-1   | EtherNet/IP-2  |
          | LiebDevMgmt_A   | LiebDevMgmt_C   | LiebDevMgmt_DM |
          | 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        | 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   | 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  | srvc_registry   | stm_pproc      |
          | subntbcst_tftp  | udt_os          | universe_suite |
          | veritas_pbx     | vision_elmd     | vision_server  |
          | whois++         | wrs_registry    | z39.50         |
          +-----------------+-----------------+----------------+

8.2.  Port Numbers for SCTP and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
             Values In DCCP Experimentation

   Two Well Known ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved for
   experimentation UDP and TCP [RFC4727].  This document registers the Internet Protocol
   same port numbers for SCTP and Related Headers", BCP
             37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

   [RFC4020] Kompella, K. DCCP, and A. Zinin, "Early also instructs 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 to
   automatically register these two port numbers for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section any new transport
   protocol that will in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
             2008.

10.2. Informative References

   [I-D.touch-tsvwg-port-guidelines] Touch, J., "Guidelines the future share the port number namespace.

   Note that these port numbers are meant for
             Transport Port Use", Work temporary experimentation
   and development in Progress, Nov. 2008.

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

   [RFC0959] Postel, J. controlled environments.  Before using these port
   numbers, carefully consider the advice in Section 4.1 in this
   document, as well as in Sections 1 and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD
             9, RFC 959, October 1985.

   [RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP 1.1 of [RFC3692].  Most
   importantly, application developers must request a permanent port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)",
   number assignment from IANA as described in Section 6.1 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
             1078, November 1988.

   [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR number allocated to
   this document before publication.]

8.3.  Updates to DCCP Registries

   This document updates the IANA allocation procedures for
             specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
             February 2000.

   [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.

   [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.

   [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/.

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

Editorial Comments

   [database-rules] Lars: Some of these rules below allow entries that
   aren't in full alignment with the procedures in this document. I
   assume that is, because the rules attempt to describe the state of
   the IANA database including all existing entries? If so, we should
   make that clearer.

   [port-reserv] Magnus: The usage of for the above reason reserved port
   numbers should probably not have the same rules as the other reserved
   ports. Needs discussion if we should separate this properly. I think
   the IETF consultation part will make it difficult the day one
   registry runs out of unassigned ones.

   [res-vs-unass]    Lars: This used to say "unassigned" instead of
   "reserved". I suggest "reserved", so that IANA has an indication in
   their list that they need to be careful when re-assigning a
   previously de-registered port.

   [res-vs-unass2]   Lars: See [res-vs-unass].

   [sctp-dccp-exp]   Lars: This document should register ports 1021 and
   1022 for DCCP and SCTP. Joe: and potentially for all new protocols,
   as suggested by Alfred?

   [serv-nam-reg]    Lars: Add citation to the service name registry
   draft, when it exists

APPENDIX A: Updates to DCCP Registries

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

A.1.

8.3.1.  DCCP Service Code Registry

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

   o  IANA MAY assign new Service Codes without seeking Expert Review
      using their discretion, but SHOULD seek expert review when a
      request seeks an appreciable number of Service Codes (e.g., more
      than five).

   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].

A.2.

8.3.2.  DCCP Port Numbers Registry

   The DCCP ports registry is defined by [RFC4340] in Section 19.9.
   Allocations in this registry require prior allocation of a Service
   Code.  Not all Service Codes require IANA-registered ports.  This
   document updates Section 19.9 of [RFC4340] 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
      IETF action an
      "IETF Review" [RFC5226] prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340]. Such action
      typically requires confirmation that the protocol indicated is in
      the standards track of the IETF.

   Section 19.9 of [RFC4340] requires each DCCP server port assignment
   to be associated with at least one Service Code value.  This document
   updates [RFC4340] in the following way:

   o  IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than
      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.

   RFC4340]

   [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.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The text in Section 8.3 is based on a suggestion by Tom Phelan.

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

10.  References

10.1.  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.

10.2.  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-dnsext-multicastdns]
              Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS",
              draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-07 (work in progress),
              September 2008.

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

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

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

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

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

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

   [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.

   [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.

   [SRVTYPE]  "DNS SRV (RFC 2782) Service Types",
               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/.

   [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/

   Allison Mankin
   Johns Hopkins Univ.
   USA University

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

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Torshamsgatan 23
   Stockholm  164 80
   Sweden

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

   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

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Torshamsgatan 23
   Stockholm  164 80
   Sweden

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