draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-05.txt 
Transport Area Working Group M. Cotton Transport Area Working Group M. Cotton
Internet-Draft ICANN Internet-Draft ICANN
Updates: 2780, 2782, 3828, 4340, L. Eggert Updates: 2780, 2782, 3828, 4340, L. Eggert
4960 (if approved) Nokia 4960 (if approved) Nokia
Intended status: BCP J. Touch Intended status: BCP J. Touch
Expires: July 15, 2010 USC/ISI Expires: November 22, 2010 USC/ISI
M. Westerlund M. Westerlund
Ericsson Ericsson
January 11, 2010 May 21, 2010
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management
of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry of the Transport Protocol Port Number and Service Name Registry
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04 draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling registration and other
requests related to the transport protocol port number and service requests related to the transport protocol port number and service
name registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind name registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind
these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability
of the registry. of the registry.
This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting Sections 8 and This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting Sections 8 and
9.1 of the IANA allocation guidelines [RFC2780], it updates the IANA 9.1 of the IANA allocation guidelines [RFC2780], it updates the IANA
allocation procedures for UDP-Lite [RFC3828], DCCP [RFC4340] and SCTP allocation procedures for UDP-Lite [RFC3828], DCCP [RFC4340] and SCTP
[RFC4960], it updates the DNS SRV specification [RFC2782] to clarify [RFC4960], it updates the DNS SRV specification [RFC2782] to clarify
what a service name is and how it is registered. what a service name is and how it is registered.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on November 22, 2010.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Service Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Service Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Service Name Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Service Name Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation . . . . 10 6.1. Port Numbers and Service Names for Experimentation . . . . 11
7. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry 7. Principles for Port Number and Service Name Registry
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Past Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Past Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Updated Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Updated Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . 14 7.3. Variances for Specific Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service
Name Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Name Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Port Number and Service Name Registration . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Port Number and Service Name Registration . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration . . . . . . . 18 8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration . . . . . . . 19
8.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.3. Port Number and Service Name Re-Use . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation . . . . . . . . . 19 8.4. Port Number and Service Name Revocation . . . . . . . . . 20
8.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.5. Port Number and Service Name Transfers . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.6. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.6. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.1. Service Name Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 23 10.2. Port Numbers for SCTP and DCCP Experimentation . . . . . . 24
10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.3. Updates to DCCP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number For many years, the allocation and registration of new port number
values and service names for use with the Transmission Control values and service names for use with the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
[RFC0768] have had less than clear guidelines. New transport [RFC0768] have had less than clear guidelines. New transport
protocols have been added - the Stream Control Transmission Protocol protocols have been added - the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) (SCTP) [RFC4960] and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
[RFC4342] - and new mechanisms like DNS SRV records [RFC2782] have [RFC4342] - and new mechanisms like DNS SRV records [RFC2782] have
skipping to change at page 5, line 22 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
to which section of that 230-page document it refers. The DNS SRV to which section of that 230-page document it refers. The DNS SRV
specification may have been referring to the list of Port Assignments specification may have been referring to the list of Port Assignments
(known as /etc/services on Unix), or to the "Protocol And Service (known as /etc/services on Unix), or to the "Protocol And Service
Names" section, or to both, or to some other section. Furthermore, Names" section, or to both, or to some other section. Furthermore,
"Assigned Numbers" is now obsolete [RFC3232] and has now been "Assigned Numbers" is now obsolete [RFC3232] and has now been
replaced by on-line registries [PORTREG][PROTSERVREG]. There are replaced by on-line registries [PORTREG][PROTSERVREG]. There are
additional updates and clarifications on how DNS SRV utilize the additional updates and clarifications on how DNS SRV utilize the
Service name registry created in this document in "Clarification of Service name registry created in this document in "Clarification of
DNS SRV Owner Names" [I-D.gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify]. DNS SRV Owner Names" [I-D.gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify].
The development of new transport protocols is a major effort that the
IETF does not undertake very often. If a new transport protocol is
standardized in the future, for the purpose of uniformity it is
expected to follow as much as possible the guidelines and practices
around using port numbers and service names.
2. Motivation 2. Motivation
Information about the registration procedures for the port registry Information about the registration procedures for the port registry
has existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number has existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number
registrations on the IANA web site [SYSFORM] [USRFORM], an registrations on the IANA web site [SYSFORM] [USRFORM], an
introductory text section in the file listing the port number introductory text section in the file listing the port number
registrations themselves [PORTREG], and two brief sections of the registrations themselves [PORTREG], and two brief sections of the
IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780]. IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].
Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been Similarly, the procedures surrounding service names have been
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 13
for both port numbers and service names. It gives more detailed for both port numbers and service names. It gives more detailed
guidance to prospective requesters of ports and service names than guidance to prospective requesters of ports and service names than
the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures the existing documentation, and it streamlines the IANA procedures
for the management of the registry, so that management requests can for the management of the registry, so that management requests can
complete in a timely manner. complete in a timely manner.
This document defines rules for registration of service names without This document defines rules for registration of service names without
associated port numbers, for such usages as DNS SRV records associated port numbers, for such usages as DNS SRV records
[RFC2782], which was not possible under the previous IANA procedures. [RFC2782], which was not possible under the previous IANA procedures.
The document also merges service name registrations from the non-IANA The document also merges service name registrations from the non-IANA
ad hoc registry [SRVREG] and from the the IANA "Protocol and Service ad hoc registry [SRVREG] and from the IANA "Protocol and Service
Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] into the IANA "Port and Service Name" Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] into the IANA "Port and Service Name"
registry [PORTREG], which from here on is the single authoritative registry [PORTREG], which from here on is the single authoritative
registry for service names and port numbers. registry for service names and port numbers.
An additional purpose of this document is to describe the principles An additional purpose of this document is to describe the principles
that guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint that guide the IETF and IANA in their role as the long-term joint
stewards of the port number registry. TCP and UDP have been a stewards of the port number registry. TCP and UDP have been a
remarkable success over the last decades. Thousands of applications remarkable success over the last decades. Thousands of applications
and application-level protocols have registered ports and service and application-level protocols have registered ports and service
names for their use, and there is every reason to believe that this names for their use, and there is every reason to believe that this
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
also ask for only an assigned service name, if their application does also ask for only an assigned service name, if their application does
not require a fixed port number. The latter alternative is not require a fixed port number. The latter alternative is
encouraged when possible, in order to conserve the more limited port encouraged when possible, in order to conserve the more limited port
number space. This includes, for example, applications that use DNS number space. This includes, for example, applications that use DNS
SRV records to look up port numbers at runtime. SRV records to look up port numbers at runtime.
4. Conventions Used in this Document 4. Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
5. Service Names 5. Service Names
Service names are the unique key in the Port and Service Name Service names are the unique key in the Port and Service Name
registry. This unique symbolic name for a service may also be used registry. This unique symbolic name for a service may also be used
for other purposes, such as in DNS SRV records [RFC2782]. Within the for other purposes, such as in DNS SRV records [RFC2782]. Within the
registry, this unique key ensures that different services can be registry, this unique key ensures that different services can be
unambiguously distinguished, thus preventing name collisions and unambiguously distinguished, thus preventing name collisions and
avoiding confusion about who is the administrative contact for a avoiding confusion about who is the administrative contact for a
particular entry. particular entry.
For each service name, there may exist zero or more associated port For each service name, there may exist zero or more associated port
number assignments. A port number assignment associated with a number assignments. A port number assignment associated with a
service name contains the transport protocol, port number and service name contains the transport protocol, port number and
possibly additional data, such as a DCCP service code. possibly additional data, such as a DCCP Service Code.
There may be more than one service name associated with a particular There may be more than one service name associated with a particular
transport protocol and port. This SHOULD only occur when all such transport protocol and port. There are two valid reasons for
service names are aliases for the same service, such as with "http" allowing service name aliases:
and "www". In such cases, one of the service names MUST be
designated primary, for use with mechanisms such as DNS SRV Records o Aliases are permissible when all such service names are for the
[RFC2782], and the others MUST be designated as aliases of the same service, such as with "http" and "www", which both name TCP
primary service name. This is necessary so that all clients and port 80. In such cases, one of the service names SHOULD be
servers using a service discovery mechanism use a consistent name by designated primary, for use with mechanisms such as DNS SRV
which to refer to a given service. Otherwise, if a server were to Records [RFC2782], and the others SHOULD be designated as aliases
advertise that it supports the "www" service, and a client were to of the primary service name. This is necessary so that clients
seek instances of the "http" service, that client would fail to and servers using a service discovery mechanism use a consistent
discover that server, defeating the purpose of having a service name by which to refer to a given service. Otherwise, if a server
discovery mechanism. were to advertise that it supports the "www" service, and a client
were to seek instances of the "http" service, that client would
fail to discover that server, defeating the purpose of having a
service discovery mechanism. For aliases that do not indicate a
primary alias, a server is expected to register itself under all
aliased service names.
o Aliases are also permissible when one service is an extension of
another service, and an in-band mechanisms exists for determining
if the extension is present or not. One example is port 3478,
which has the service name aliases "stun" and "turn". TURN
[RFC5766] is an extension to the STUN [RFC5389] service. TURN-
enabled clients wishing to locate TURN servers could attempt to
discover "stun" services and then checking in-band if the server
supports TURN, but this is inefficient. Enabling them to directly
query for "turn" servers by name is a better approach. (Note that
TURN servers in this case should also be locatable via a "stun"
discovery, because every TURN server is also a STUN server.)
Service names are assigned on a "first come, first served" basis, as Service names are assigned on a "first come, first served" basis, as
described in Section 8.1. Names should be brief and informative, described in Section 8.1. Names should be brief and informative,
avoiding words or abbreviations that are redundant in the context of avoiding words or abbreviations that are redundant in the context of
the registry (e.g., "port", "service", "protocol", etc.) Names the registry (e.g., "port", "service", "protocol", etc.) Names
referring to discovery services, e.g., using multicast or broadcast referring to discovery services, e.g., using multicast or broadcast
to identify endpoints capable of a given service, SHOULD use an to identify endpoints capable of a given service, SHOULD use an
easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc"). easily identifiable suffix (e.g., "-disc").
5.1. Service Name Syntax 5.1. Service Name Syntax
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 27
hyphens ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45). They MUST be at least one hyphens ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45). They MUST be at least one
character and no more than fifteen characters long, MUST NOT begin or 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 end with a hyphen, and MUST NOT consist of only digits (in order to
be distinguishable from port numbers, which are typically written as be distinguishable from port numbers, which are typically written as
all digits). all digits).
The service name syntax MAY be used to validate a service name The service name syntax MAY be used to validate a service name
string, but MUST NOT be used for any other purpose (e.g., string, but MUST NOT be used for any other purpose (e.g.,
delineation). Any system that includes a service name inside a delineation). Any system that includes a service name inside a
longer string is itself responsible for delineating the service name. longer string is itself responsible for delineating the service name.
Such systems MUST NOT rely on the syntax of a service name alone for Such systems MUST NOT rely on the syntax of a service name alone for
such delineation. such delineation.
The syntax defined in ABNF [RFC5234]: The syntax defined in ABNF [RFC5234]:
SERVICE-NAME = ( ALPHA / *( [HYPHEN] ALPHANUM ) ) SRVNAME = (ALPHA / *([HYPHEN] ALNUM)) /
/ (1*DIGIT ( (HYPHEN ALPHANUM) | ALPHA) *([HYPHEN] ALPHANUM) ) (1*DIGIT ((HYPHEN ALNUM) / ALPHA) *([HYPHEN] ALNUM))
ALNUM = ALPHA / DIGIT ; A-Z, a-z, 0-9
ALPHANUM = ALPHA | DIGIT ; A-Z, a-z, 0-9 HYPHEN = %x2d ; "-"
HYPHEN = %x2d ; "-" ALPHA = <See [RFC5234]>
ALPHA = <See RFC 5234> DIGIT = <See [RFC5234]>
DIGIT = <See RFC 5234>
5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records 5.2. Service Name Usage in DNS SRV Records
The DNS SRV specification [RFC2782] requests that the Service Label The DNS SRV specification [RFC2782] requests that the Service Label
part of the owner name of DNS SRV records includes a "Service" part of the owner name of DNS SRV records includes a "Service"
element, defined to be "the symbolic name of the desired service", element, defined to be "the symbolic name of the desired service",
but did not state precisely which part of the IANA database (i.e. but did not state precisely which part of the IANA database (i.e.
STD 2 when RFC 2782 was written) serves as a registry for standard STD 2 when [RFC2782] was written) serves as a registry for standard
service names. service names.
This document clarifies that the Service Label MUST be a service name This document clarifies that the Service Label MUST be a service name
as defined herein. The service name SHOULD be registered with IANA as defined herein. The service name SHOULD be registered with IANA
and recorded in the Service Names and Port Numbers registry and recorded in the Service Names and Port Numbers registry
[PORTREG]. This is needed to ensure that only a single registry of [PORTREG]. This is needed to ensure that only a single registry of
Service Names exists and name collisions can be avoided in the Service Names exists and name collisions can be avoided in the
future. future.
The details of the use of Service Names from [PORTREG] in SRV Service The details of the use of Service Names from [PORTREG] in SRV Service
Labels are specified in [RFC2782] and the documents updating or Labels are specified in [RFC2782] and the documents updating or
replacing that specification (see the companion document replacing that specification (see the companion document
[I-D.gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify] for more information). [I-D.gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify] for more information).
The details of how applications make use of DNS SRV should be The details of how applications make use of DNS SRV should be
specified in the documentation set of the application/service. In specified in the documentation set of the application/service. In
the absense of such specification, prospective clients of a given the absence of such specification, prospective clients of a given
service should not assume the existence of SRV RRs for this service service should not assume the existence of SRV RRs for this service
or, if they have indications that this will be the case (e.g., by or, if they have indications that this will be the case (e.g., by
configuration), must assume the unextended naming scheme from configuration), must assume the unextended naming scheme from
[RFC2782] for service discovery with DNS SRV, i.e., the Service Label [RFC2782] for service discovery with DNS SRV, i.e., the Service Label
is constructed from the Service Name registered in [PORTREG] by is constructed from the Service Name registered in [PORTREG] by
prepending a single underscore character ("_"). prepending a single underscore character ("_").
6. Port Number Ranges 6. Port Number Ranges
TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their
skipping to change at page 13, line 20 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
application application
o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all versions 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 of a service (e.g., running the service with or without a security
mechanism, or for updated variants of a service) mechanism, or for updated variants of a service)
o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all different o IANA will allocate only one assigned port number for all different
types of device using or participating in the same service types of device using or participating in the same service
o IANA will allocate port numbers only for the transport protocol(s) o IANA will allocate port numbers only for the transport protocol(s)
(if any) explicitly named in an registration request explicitly named in an registration request
o IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of o IANA may recover unused port numbers, via the new procedures of
de-registration, revocation, and transfer de-registration, revocation, and transfer
A given service is expected to further demultiplex messages where A given service is expected to further demultiplex messages where
possible. For example, applications and protocols are expected to possible. For example, applications and protocols are expected to
include in-band version information, so that future versions of the include in-band version information, so that future versions of the
application or protocol can share the same allocated port. application or protocol can share the same allocated port.
Applications and protocols are also expected to be able to Applications and protocols are also expected to be able to
efficiently use a single allocated port for multiple sessions, either efficiently use a single allocated port for multiple sessions, either
skipping to change at page 14, line 4 skipping to change at page 14, line 24
The process and protocol identifier use suggests that anything a The process and protocol identifier use suggests that anything a
single process can demultiplex, or that can be encoded into a single single process can demultiplex, or that can be encoded into a single
protocol, should be. The firewall filtering use suggests that some protocol, should be. The firewall filtering use suggests that some
uses that could be multiplexed or encoded must be separated to allow uses that could be multiplexed or encoded must be separated to allow
for firewall management. Note that this latter use is much less for firewall management. Note that this latter use is much less
sound, because port numbers have meaning only for the two endpoints sound, because port numbers have meaning only for the two endpoints
involved in a connection, and drawing conclusions about the service involved in a connection, and drawing conclusions about the service
that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is not that generated a given flow based on observed port numbers is not
always reliable. Further, previous separation of protocol variants always reliable. Further, previous separation of protocol variants
based on security capabilities (e.g., HTTP on port 80 vs. HTTPS on based on security capabilities (e.g., HTTP on TCP port 80 vs. HTTPS
port 443) is not recommended for new protocols, because all should be on TCP port 443) is not recommended for new protocols, because all
security-capable and capable of negotiating the use of security in- should be security-capable and capable of negotiating the use of
band. security in-band.
IANA will begin assigning protocol numbers for only those transport IANA will begin assigning port numbers for only those transport
protocols explicitly included in a registration request. This ends protocols explicitly included in a registration request. This ends
the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number the long-standing practice of automatically assigning a port number
to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is for to an application for both TCP and a UDP, even if the request is for
only one of these transport protocols. The new allocation procedure only one of these transport protocols. The new allocation procedure
conserves resources by allocating a port number to an application for conserves resources by allocating a port number to an application for
only those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or DCCP) it only those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or DCCP) it
actually uses. The port number will be marked as Reserved - instead actually uses. The port number will be marked as Reserved - instead
of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other transport of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other transport
protocols. When applications start supporting the use of some of protocols. When applications start supporting the use of some of
those additional transport protocols, their implementors MUST request those additional transport protocols, the administrative contact for
IANA to convert the reservation into an assignment. An application the registration MUST request IANA to convert the reservation into a
MUST NOT assume that it can use a port number assigned to it for use proper assignment. An application MUST NOT assume that it can use a
with one transport protocol with another transport protocol without port number assigned to it for use with one transport protocol with
asking IANA to convert the reservation into an assignment. another transport protocol without asking IANA to convert the
reservation into an assignment.
When the available pool of unassigned address has run out in a port When the available pool of unassigned numbers has run out in a ports
range, it will be necessary for IANA to consider the Reserved ports range, it will be necessary for IANA to consider the Reserved ports
for assignment. This is part of the motivation to not automatically for assignment. This is part of the motivation to not automatically
assigning ports for other transport protocols than the requested assigning ports for other transport protocols than the requested
ones. This will allow more ports to be available for assignment at ones. This will allow more ports to be available for assignment at
that point. It also shows the importance to register the transport that point. It also shows the importance to register the transport
protocols that are in fact used. protocols that are in fact used.
Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow Conservation of port numbers is improved by procedures that allow
previously allocated port numbers to become Unassigned, either previously allocated port numbers to become Unassigned, either
through de-registration or through revocation, and by a procedure through de-registration or through revocation, and by a procedure
skipping to change at page 15, line 20 skipping to change at page 15, line 41
registration through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers registration through IANA, and MAY be used as service identifiers
upon successful registration. Because registering a port number upon successful registration. Because registering a port number
for a specific application consumes a fraction of the shared for a specific application consumes a fraction of the shared
resource that is the port number registry, IANA will require the resource that is the port number registry, IANA will require the
requester to document the intended use of the port number. This requester to document the intended use of the port number. This
documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" allocation documentation will be input to the "Expert Review" allocation
procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert procedure [RFC5226], by which IANA will have a technical expert
review the request to determine whether to grant the registration. review the request to determine whether to grant the registration.
The submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number The submitted documentation MUST explain why using a port number
in the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given in the Dynamic Ports range is unsuitable for the given
application. application. Ports in the Registered Ports range may also be
assigned under the "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" allocation
procedures [RFC5226], which is how most assignments for IETF
protocols are handled.
o Ports in the Well Known Ports range (0-1023) are also available o Ports in the Well Known Ports range (0-1023) are also available
for registration through IANA. Because the Well Known Ports range for registration through IANA. Because the Well Known Ports range
is both the smallest and the most densely allocated, the is both the smallest and the most densely allocated, the
requirements for new allocations are more strict than those for requirements for new allocations are more strict than those for
the Registered Ports range, and will only be granted under the the Registered Ports range, and will only be granted under the
"IETF Review" allocation procedure [RFC5226]. A request for a "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" allocation procedures [RFC5226].
Well Known port number MUST document why using a port number from
both the Registered Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable A request for a Well Known port number MUST document why using a
for the given application. port number from both the Registered Ports and Dynamic Ports
ranges is unsuitable for the given application.
8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service Name 8. IANA Procedures for Managing the Port Number and Service Name
Registry Registry
This section describes the process for requests associated with This section describes the process for requests associated with
IANA's management of the port number and service name registry. Such IANA's management of the port number and service name registry. Such
requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use, requests include initial registration, de-registration, re-use,
changes to the service name, as well as updates to the contact changes to the service name, as well as updates to the contact
information or description associated with an assignment. Revocation information or description associated with an assignment. Revocation
is initiated by IANA. is initiated by IANA.
skipping to change at page 16, line 20 skipping to change at page 17, line 6
Unassigned in the requested range. The current administrative Unassigned in the requested range. The current administrative
contact for a port number MAY register these Reserved port numbers contact for a port number MAY register these Reserved port numbers
for other transport protocols when needed. for other transport protocols when needed.
Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific Service names, on the other hand, are not tied to a specific
transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name transport protocol, and registration requests for only a service name
(but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all (but not a port number) allocate that service name for use with all
transport protocols. transport protocols.
A port number or service name registration request contains some or A port number or service name registration request contains some or
all of the following information: all of the following information. The combination of service name
and transport protocol is the unique identifier of a given service:
Service Name (REQUIRED)
Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED)
Registration Administrative Contact (REQUIRED) Registration Administrative Contact (REQUIRED)
Registration Technical Contact (REQUIRED) Registration Technical Contact (REQUIRED)
Service Name (REQUIRED)
Port Number (OPTIONAL) Port Number (OPTIONAL)
Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED if port number requested)
Service Code (only REQUIRED for DCCP) Service Code (only REQUIRED for DCCP)
Description (REQUIRED) Description (REQUIRED)
Reference (REQUIRED) Reference (REQUIRED)
Known Unauthorized Uses (OPTIONAL)
Assignment Notes (OPTIONAL)
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]). The name MUST be
compliant with the syntax defined in Section 5.1. 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 Transport Protocol(s): 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. This field is
required even for services with no port number.
o Registration Administrative Contact: Name and email address of the o Registration Administrative Contact: Name and email address of the
administrative contact for the registration. This is REQUIRED. administrative contact for the registration. This is REQUIRED.
The name of the administrative contact identifies the The name of the administrative contact identifies the
organization, company, or individual who is responsible for the organization, company, or individual who is responsible for the
registration. Registrations done through IETF-published RFCs, the registration. For registrations done through IETF-published RFCs,
administrative contact will be the IETF and not the technical the administrative contact will be the IESG.
contact persons.
o Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the o Registration Technical Contact: Name and email address of the
technical contact person for the registration. This is REQUIRED. technical contact person for the registration. This is REQUIRED.
For individuals, this is the same as the Registration For individuals, this is the same as the Registration
Administrative Contact; for organizations, this is a point of Administrative Contact; for organizations, this is a point of
contact at that organization. Additional address information MAY contact at that organization. Additional address information MAY
be provided. For registrations done through IETF-published RFCs, be provided. For registrations done through IETF-published RFCs,
one or more technical contact persons SHALL be provided. the technical contact will be the IESG.
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]). The name MUST be
compliant with the syntax defined in Section 5.1. 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 a port number is desired, either the o Port Number: If assignment of a port number is desired, either the
currently Unassigned port number the requester suggests for currently Unassigned port number the requester suggests for
allocation, or the text "ANY", MUST be provided. If only a allocation, or the text "ANY", MUST be provided. If only a
service name is to be assigned, this field MUST be empty. If a service name is to be assigned, this field MUST be empty. If a
specific port number is requested, IANA is encouraged to allocate specific port number is requested, IANA is encouraged to allocate
the requested number. If the text "ANY" is specified, IANA will the requested number. If the text "ANY" is specified, IANA will
choose a suitable number from the Registered Ports range. Note choose a suitable number from the Registered Ports range. Note
that the applicant MUST NOT use the requested port prior to the that the applicant MUST NOT use the requested port prior to the
completion of the registration. completion of the registration.
o Transport Protocol(s): If assignment of a port number is desired,
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: The request MUST include a desired unique DCCP o Service Code: The request MUST include a desired unique DCCP
service code [RFC5595] if the registration request includes DCCP service code [RFC5595], if the registration request includes DCCP
as a transport protocol, and MUST NOT include a requested DCCP as a transport protocol, and MUST NOT include a requested DCCP
service code otherwise. service code otherwise. Section 19.8 of [RFC4340] defines
requirements and rules for allocation, updated by this document.
o Description: A short description of the service associated with o Description: A short description of the service associated with
the registration request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the the registration request is REQUIRED. It should avoid all but the
most well known acronyms. most well known acronyms.
o Reference: A description of (or a reference to a document o Reference: A description of (or a reference to a document
describing) the protocol or application using this port. The describing) the protocol or application using this port. The
description must include whether the protocol uses either description must include whether the protocol uses either
broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication. broadcast, multicast, or anycast communication.
skipping to change at page 18, line 20 skipping to change at page 18, line 45
is unsuitable for the given application. is unsuitable for the given application.
For registration requests for a Well Known Port, the registration For registration requests for a Well Known Port, the registration
request MUST explain why a port number in the Registered Ports or request MUST explain why a port number in the Registered Ports or
Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable, and a reference to a stable Dynamic Ports ranges is unsuitable, and a reference to a stable
protocol specification document MUST be provided. For requests protocol specification document MUST be provided. For requests
from IETF Working Groups, IANA MAY accept "Early" registration from IETF Working Groups, IANA MAY accept "Early" registration
requests referencing a sufficiently stable Internet Draft instead requests referencing a sufficiently stable Internet Draft instead
of a published Standards-Track RFC [RFC4020]. of a published Standards-Track RFC [RFC4020].
When IANA receives a registration request containing the above o Known Unauthorized Uses: A list of uses by applications or
information requesting a port number, IANA SHALL initiate an "Expert organizations who are not the assignee. This list may be
Review" [RFC5226] in order to determine whether an assignment should augmented by IANA after assignment when unauthorized uses are
be made. For requests that do not include a port number, IANA SHOULD reported.
assign the service name under a simple "First Come First Served"
policy [RFC5226]. o Assignment Notes: Indications of owner/name change, or any other
assignment process issue. This list may be updated by IANA after
assignment to help track changes to an assignment, e.g., de-
registration, owner/name changes, etc.
If the registration request is for the addition of a new transport
protocol to an already assigned service name, IANA needs to confirm
with the administrative contact for the existing assignment whether
this addition is appropriate.
If the registration request is for a service name alias (see
Section 5), IANA needs to confirm with the administrative contact for
the existing service name whether the registration of the alias is
appropriate.
When IANA receives a registration request - containing the above
information - that is requesting a port number, IANA SHALL initiate
an "Expert Review" [RFC5226] in order to determine whether an
assignment should be made. For requests that do not include a port
number, IANA SHOULD assign the service name under a simple "First
Come First Served" policy [RFC5226].
8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration 8.2. Port Number and Service Name De-Registration
The administrative contact of a granted port number assignment can The administrative contact of a granted port number assignment can
return the port number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a return the port number to IANA at any time if they no longer have a
need for it. The port number will be de-registered and will be need for it. The port number will be de-registered and will be
marked as Reserved. IANA should not re-assign port numbers that have marked as Reserved. IANA should not re-assign port numbers that have
been de-registered until all other available port numbers in the been de-registered until all other available port numbers in the
specific range have been assigned. specific range have been assigned.
skipping to change at page 21, line 30 skipping to change at page 22, line 27
maintainer of the [SRVREG] registry, in order to merge the contents maintainer of the [SRVREG] registry, in order to merge the contents
of that private registry into the official IANA registry. It is of that private registry into the official IANA registry. It is
expected that the contents of [SRVREG] will at that time be replaced expected that the contents of [SRVREG] will at that time be replaced
with pointers to the IANA registry and to this RFC. with pointers to the IANA registry and to this RFC.
IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in the port IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in the port
number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the "Protocol and Service number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the "Protocol and Service
Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not already have one Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not already have one
assigned. assigned.
IANA is also instructed to indicate which service name aliases in the
existing registry are the primary aliases (see Section 5).
10.1. Service Name Consistency 10.1. Service Name Consistency
Section 8.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service Section 8.1 defines which character strings are well-formed service
names, which until now had not been clearly defined. The definition names, which until now had not been clearly defined. The definition
in Section 8.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service in Section 8.1 was chosen to allow maximum compatibility of service
names with current and future service discovery mechanisms. names with current and future service discovery mechanisms.
As of August 5, 2009 approximately 98% of the so-called "Short Names" As of August 5, 2009 approximately 98% of the so-called "Short Names"
from existing port number registrations [PORTREG] meet the rules for from existing port number registrations [PORTREG] meet the rules for
legal service names stated in Section 8.1, and hence will be used legal service names stated in Section 8.1, and hence will be used
unmodified. unmodified.
The remaining approximately 2% of the exiting "Short Names" are not The remaining approximately 2% of the exiting "Short Names" are not
suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because suitable to be used directly as well-formed service names because
they contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, plusses, they contain illegal characters such as asterisks, dots, pluses,
slashes, or underscores. All existing "Short Names" conform to the slashes, or underscores. All existing "Short Names" conform to the
length requirement of 15 characters or fewer. For these unsuitable length requirement of 15 characters or fewer. For these unsuitable
"Short Names", listed in the table below, the service name will be "Short Names", listed in the table below, the service name will be
the Short Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens. IANA the Short Name with any illegal characters replaced by hyphens. IANA
SHALL add an entry to the registry giving the new well-formed primary SHALL add an entry to the registry giving the new well-formed primary
service name for the existing service, that otherwise duplicates the service name for the existing service, that otherwise duplicates the
original assignment information. In the description field of this original assignment information. In the description field of this
new entry giving the primary service name, IANA SHALL record that it new entry giving the primary service name, IANA SHALL record that it
assigns a well-formed service name for the previous service and assigns a well-formed service name for the previous service and
reference the original assignment. In the description field of the reference the original assignment. In the description field of the
skipping to change at page 25, line 22 skipping to change at page 26, line 22
specification [RFC4340]. Allocations in this registry require prior specification [RFC4340]. Allocations in this registry require prior
allocation of a Service Code. Not all Service Codes require IANA- allocation of a Service Code. Not all Service Codes require IANA-
registered ports. This document updates that section by extending registered ports. This document updates that section by extending
the guidelines given there in the following way: the guidelines given there in the following way:
o IANA should normally assign a value in the range 1024-49151 to a o IANA should normally assign a value in the range 1024-49151 to a
DCCP server port. IANA allocation requests to allocate port DCCP server port. IANA allocation requests to allocate port
numbers in the Well Known Ports range (0 through 1023), require an numbers in the Well Known Ports range (0 through 1023), require an
"IETF Review" [RFC5226] prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340]. "IETF Review" [RFC5226] prior to allocation by IANA [RFC4340].
o IANA MUST NOT allocate a single Service Code value to more than o IANA MUST NOT allocate more than one DCCP server port to a single
one DCCP server port. service code value.
o The allocation of multiple service codes to the same DCCP port is
allowed, but subject to expert review.
o The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server port o The set of Service Code values associated with a DCCP server port
should be recorded in the ports registry. should be recorded in the ports registry.
o A request for additional Service Codes to be associated with an o A request for additional Service Codes to be associated with an
already allocated Port Number requires Expert Review. These already allocated Port Number requires Expert Review. These
requests will normally be accepted when they originate from the requests will normally be accepted when they originate from the
contact associated with the port registration. In other cases, contact associated with the port registration. In other cases,
these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port, these applications will be expected to use an unallocated port,
when this is available. when this is available.
skipping to change at page 25, line 47 skipping to change at page 26, line 50
document requires that this name MUST be unique. document requires that this name MUST be unique.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
Stuart Cheshire (cheshire@apple.com), Alfred Hoenes (ah@tr-sys.de) Stuart Cheshire (cheshire@apple.com), Alfred Hoenes (ah@tr-sys.de)
and Allison Mankin (mankin@psg.com) have contributed text and ideas and Allison Mankin (mankin@psg.com) have contributed text and ideas
to this document. to this document.
12. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
The text in Section 10.3 is based on a suggestion by Tom Phelan. The text in Section 10.3 is based on a suggestion originally proposed
as a part of [RFC5595] by Gorry Fairhurst.
Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project [TRILOGY], a Lars Eggert is partly funded by the Trilogy Project [TRILOGY], a
research project supported by the European Commission under its research project supported by the European Commission under its
Seventh Framework Program. Seventh Framework Program.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[ANSI.X3-4.1986] [ANSI.X3-4.1986]
skipping to change at page 27, line 9 skipping to change at page 28, line 10
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd]
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05 (work in Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-06 (work in
progress), September 2008. progress), March 2010.
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)", Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008. draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.
[I-D.gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify] [I-D.gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify]
Gudmundsson, O. and A. Hoenes, "Clarification of DNS SRV Gudmundsson, O. and A. Hoenes, "Clarification of DNS SRV
Owner Names", draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00 Owner Names", draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00
(work in progress), December 2009. (work in progress), December 2009.
skipping to change at page 28, line 16 skipping to change at page 29, line 19
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
March 2006. March 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007. RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for [RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for
the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008. the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237, February 2008.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol [RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009. (DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.
[SRVREG] "DNS SRV Service Types Registry", [SRVREG] "DNS SRV Service Types Registry",
http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html. http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html.
[SYSFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application [SYSFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
for System (Well Known) Port Number", for System (Well Known) Port Number",
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl. http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl.
[TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/. [TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/.
[USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application [USRFORM] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Application
 End of changes. 49 change blocks. 
118 lines changed or deleted 174 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/