You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> on 2011/01/05 22:00:26 UTC
Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
I'd like to get some peer review on my response to IANA here.
CouchDB is a special use-case of HTTP 1.1 as justified in my previous application for TCP 5984. It is, however, still bound by the common limitations of HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS. In theory, HTTP 1.1 provides a mechanism to upgrade an established connection to a secure one, but in practice this is very rarely used, or in fact, implemented.
If you wish to use HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS in a way that is compatible with current clients and libraries, it is necessary to use a dedicated port for this. Because it is anticipated that users will want to host non-secure and secure CouchDB databases on the same sever, we are therefor requesting a secure port, similar to TCP 443.
On 24 Dec 2010, at 16:51, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
> Dear Noah Slater:
>
> Thank you for your patience. We received the following question for you:
>
> -----
>
> Please justify and explain why a separate port number would be needed
> for a secure version of the protocol? IANA does not anymore anticipate
> allocating separate ports for secure versions as this is no longer
> necessary with modern security protocols. Same holds for new
> versions of the protocol (a version number should be included).
>
> -----
>
> When we receive your reply, we will continue the processing of
> the request.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Pearl Liang
> ICANN/IANA
>
> On Tue Dec 14 11:08:43 2010, pearl.liang wrote:
>> On Sat Dec 04 00:04:28 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 22:36, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your submission for a user port number.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please provide the current spec for the following?
>>>>
>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>
>>> Sure, CouchDB uses HTTP 1.1 as defined in RFC 2616.
>>>
>>> The rationale for why CouchDB needs a distinct port from 80 was given
>>> in the application for TCP 5984. To summarise: TCP 80 is defined as
>>> HTTP for the World Wide Web, and CouchDB is a specialised
>>> application of HTTP that is commonly expected to run in parallel
>>> with a traditional web server. This same rationale should justify
>>> the application for a TSL/SSL port variation.
>>>
>>>> The information is required to be reviewed by the current expert
>>>> review team designated by IESG.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>
>> ***ORIGINAL TEMPLATE***
>> On Fri Dec 03 05:47:41 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>
>>> Application for User Registered Port Number
>>>
>>> Name :
>>> Noah Slater
>>>
>>> E-mail :
>>> nslater@tumbolia.org
>>>
>>> Protocol Number :
>>> TCP
>>>
>>> Message Formats :
>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>
>>> Message Types :
>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>
>>> Message opcodes :
>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>
>>> Message Sequences :
>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>
>>> Protocol functions :
>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>
>>> Broadcast or Multicast used ?
>>> no
>>>
>>> How and what for Broadcast or Multicast is used (if used):
>>>
>>>
>>> Description :
>>> This port will be for CouchDB HTTP traffic over an SSL connection.
>>> CouchDB traffic is currently assigned to TCP 5984 by IANA. Due to
>>> Host restrictions inherent to the HTTP protocol, SSL communications
>>> need to use a different port number to differentiate them from non-
>>> SSL communications from the same network address. Compare TCP 80
>>> and TCP 443.
>>>
>>> Name of the port :
>>> CouchDB over TLS/SSL
>>>
>>> Short name of the port :
>>> couchdbs
>>>
>
>
Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
That sounds pretty good to me.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> I'd like to get some peer review on my response to IANA here.
>
> CouchDB is a special use-case of HTTP 1.1 as justified in my previous application for TCP 5984. It is, however, still bound by the common limitations of HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS. In theory, HTTP 1.1 provides a mechanism to upgrade an established connection to a secure one, but in practice this is very rarely used, or in fact, implemented.
>
> If you wish to use HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS in a way that is compatible with current clients and libraries, it is necessary to use a dedicated port for this. Because it is anticipated that users will want to host non-secure and secure CouchDB databases on the same sever, we are therefor requesting a secure port, similar to TCP 443.
>
> On 24 Dec 2010, at 16:51, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>
>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>
>> Thank you for your patience. We received the following question for you:
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Please justify and explain why a separate port number would be needed
>> for a secure version of the protocol? IANA does not anymore anticipate
>> allocating separate ports for secure versions as this is no longer
>> necessary with modern security protocols. Same holds for new
>> versions of the protocol (a version number should be included).
>>
>> -----
>>
>> When we receive your reply, we will continue the processing of
>> the request.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Pearl Liang
>> ICANN/IANA
>>
>> On Tue Dec 14 11:08:43 2010, pearl.liang wrote:
>>> On Sat Dec 04 00:04:28 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 22:36, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your submission for a user port number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please provide the current spec for the following?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, CouchDB uses HTTP 1.1 as defined in RFC 2616.
>>>>
>>>> The rationale for why CouchDB needs a distinct port from 80 was given
>>>> in the application for TCP 5984. To summarise: TCP 80 is defined as
>>>> HTTP for the World Wide Web, and CouchDB is a specialised
>>>> application of HTTP that is commonly expected to run in parallel
>>>> with a traditional web server. This same rationale should justify
>>>> the application for a TSL/SSL port variation.
>>>>
>>>>> The information is required to be reviewed by the current expert
>>>>> review team designated by IESG.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ***ORIGINAL TEMPLATE***
>>> On Fri Dec 03 05:47:41 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Application for User Registered Port Number
>>>>
>>>> Name :
>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>
>>>> E-mail :
>>>> nslater@tumbolia.org
>>>>
>>>> Protocol Number :
>>>> TCP
>>>>
>>>> Message Formats :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Message Types :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Broadcast or Multicast used ?
>>>> no
>>>>
>>>> How and what for Broadcast or Multicast is used (if used):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Description :
>>>> This port will be for CouchDB HTTP traffic over an SSL connection.
>>>> CouchDB traffic is currently assigned to TCP 5984 by IANA. Due to
>>>> Host restrictions inherent to the HTTP protocol, SSL communications
>>>> need to use a different port number to differentiate them from non-
>>>> SSL communications from the same network address. Compare TCP 80
>>>> and TCP 443.
>>>>
>>>> Name of the port :
>>>> CouchDB over TLS/SSL
>>>>
>>>> Short name of the port :
>>>> couchdbs
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
I can see that's true in new protocols, but they can't be claiming
that http -> https upgrade works as needed, because that requires a
change to a huge number of clients.
Agree with Noah, it's probably just a rote response. Something about
'secure port' just niggles them, I guess.
B.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most odd. Your response looks good to me, but judging from the email
> you're responding to, they've already specifically said that reasoning
> is no longer considered. Perhaps you should ask which modern security
> protocols they're talking about and some pointers on where we might
> look for an "automagical upgrade" which I've never heard of before.
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>> I'd like to get some peer review on my response to IANA here.
>>
>> CouchDB is a special use-case of HTTP 1.1 as justified in my previous application for TCP 5984. It is, however, still bound by the common limitations of HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS. In theory, HTTP 1.1 provides a mechanism to upgrade an established connection to a secure one, but in practice this is very rarely used, or in fact, implemented.
>>
>> If you wish to use HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS in a way that is compatible with current clients and libraries, it is necessary to use a dedicated port for this. Because it is anticipated that users will want to host non-secure and secure CouchDB databases on the same sever, we are therefor requesting a secure port, similar to TCP 443.
>>
>> On 24 Dec 2010, at 16:51, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>
>>> Thank you for your patience. We received the following question for you:
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Please justify and explain why a separate port number would be needed
>>> for a secure version of the protocol? IANA does not anymore anticipate
>>> allocating separate ports for secure versions as this is no longer
>>> necessary with modern security protocols. Same holds for new
>>> versions of the protocol (a version number should be included).
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> When we receive your reply, we will continue the processing of
>>> the request.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Pearl Liang
>>> ICANN/IANA
>>>
>>> On Tue Dec 14 11:08:43 2010, pearl.liang wrote:
>>>> On Sat Dec 04 00:04:28 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 22:36, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your submission for a user port number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please provide the current spec for the following?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, CouchDB uses HTTP 1.1 as defined in RFC 2616.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rationale for why CouchDB needs a distinct port from 80 was given
>>>>> in the application for TCP 5984. To summarise: TCP 80 is defined as
>>>>> HTTP for the World Wide Web, and CouchDB is a specialised
>>>>> application of HTTP that is commonly expected to run in parallel
>>>>> with a traditional web server. This same rationale should justify
>>>>> the application for a TSL/SSL port variation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The information is required to be reviewed by the current expert
>>>>>> review team designated by IESG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ***ORIGINAL TEMPLATE***
>>>> On Fri Dec 03 05:47:41 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Application for User Registered Port Number
>>>>>
>>>>> Name :
>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>>
>>>>> E-mail :
>>>>> nslater@tumbolia.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Protocol Number :
>>>>> TCP
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Broadcast or Multicast used ?
>>>>> no
>>>>>
>>>>> How and what for Broadcast or Multicast is used (if used):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Description :
>>>>> This port will be for CouchDB HTTP traffic over an SSL connection.
>>>>> CouchDB traffic is currently assigned to TCP 5984 by IANA. Due to
>>>>> Host restrictions inherent to the HTTP protocol, SSL communications
>>>>> need to use a different port number to differentiate them from non-
>>>>> SSL communications from the same network address. Compare TCP 80
>>>>> and TCP 443.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name of the port :
>>>>> CouchDB over TLS/SSL
>>>>>
>>>>> Short name of the port :
>>>>> couchdbs
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
I might throw in a line about the secure version being SSL based and
the majority of clients in existence will expect there to be a second
port. Not to mention I have no idea if its even possible to detect
encryption after the socket's been accepted without ruining the
communication protocols.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Don't read much into their response. It's probably a canned one for people who ask for secure ports. They're basically just asking for more justification, I think. That's why I want some feedback. Want to make sure I'm making a strong case for it.
>
> On 5 Jan 2011, at 21:09, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> Most odd. Your response looks good to me, but judging from the email
>> you're responding to, they've already specifically said that reasoning
>> is no longer considered. Perhaps you should ask which modern security
>> protocols they're talking about and some pointers on where we might
>> look for an "automagical upgrade" which I've never heard of before.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>> I'd like to get some peer review on my response to IANA here.
>>>
>>> CouchDB is a special use-case of HTTP 1.1 as justified in my previous application for TCP 5984. It is, however, still bound by the common limitations of HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS. In theory, HTTP 1.1 provides a mechanism to upgrade an established connection to a secure one, but in practice this is very rarely used, or in fact, implemented.
>>>
>>> If you wish to use HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS in a way that is compatible with current clients and libraries, it is necessary to use a dedicated port for this. Because it is anticipated that users will want to host non-secure and secure CouchDB databases on the same sever, we are therefor requesting a secure port, similar to TCP 443.
>>>
>>> On 24 Dec 2010, at 16:51, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your patience. We received the following question for you:
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> Please justify and explain why a separate port number would be needed
>>>> for a secure version of the protocol? IANA does not anymore anticipate
>>>> allocating separate ports for secure versions as this is no longer
>>>> necessary with modern security protocols. Same holds for new
>>>> versions of the protocol (a version number should be included).
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> When we receive your reply, we will continue the processing of
>>>> the request.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Pearl Liang
>>>> ICANN/IANA
>>>>
>>>> On Tue Dec 14 11:08:43 2010, pearl.liang wrote:
>>>>> On Sat Dec 04 00:04:28 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 22:36, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your submission for a user port number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please provide the current spec for the following?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, CouchDB uses HTTP 1.1 as defined in RFC 2616.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rationale for why CouchDB needs a distinct port from 80 was given
>>>>>> in the application for TCP 5984. To summarise: TCP 80 is defined as
>>>>>> HTTP for the World Wide Web, and CouchDB is a specialised
>>>>>> application of HTTP that is commonly expected to run in parallel
>>>>>> with a traditional web server. This same rationale should justify
>>>>>> the application for a TSL/SSL port variation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The information is required to be reviewed by the current expert
>>>>>>> review team designated by IESG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***ORIGINAL TEMPLATE***
>>>>> On Fri Dec 03 05:47:41 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Application for User Registered Port Number
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Name :
>>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E-mail :
>>>>>> nslater@tumbolia.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Protocol Number :
>>>>>> TCP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Broadcast or Multicast used ?
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How and what for Broadcast or Multicast is used (if used):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Description :
>>>>>> This port will be for CouchDB HTTP traffic over an SSL connection.
>>>>>> CouchDB traffic is currently assigned to TCP 5984 by IANA. Due to
>>>>>> Host restrictions inherent to the HTTP protocol, SSL communications
>>>>>> need to use a different port number to differentiate them from non-
>>>>>> SSL communications from the same network address. Compare TCP 80
>>>>>> and TCP 443.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Name of the port :
>>>>>> CouchDB over TLS/SSL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Short name of the port :
>>>>>> couchdbs
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Don't read much into their response. It's probably a canned one for people who ask for secure ports. They're basically just asking for more justification, I think. That's why I want some feedback. Want to make sure I'm making a strong case for it.
On 5 Jan 2011, at 21:09, Paul Davis wrote:
> Most odd. Your response looks good to me, but judging from the email
> you're responding to, they've already specifically said that reasoning
> is no longer considered. Perhaps you should ask which modern security
> protocols they're talking about and some pointers on where we might
> look for an "automagical upgrade" which I've never heard of before.
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>> I'd like to get some peer review on my response to IANA here.
>>
>> CouchDB is a special use-case of HTTP 1.1 as justified in my previous application for TCP 5984. It is, however, still bound by the common limitations of HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS. In theory, HTTP 1.1 provides a mechanism to upgrade an established connection to a secure one, but in practice this is very rarely used, or in fact, implemented.
>>
>> If you wish to use HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS in a way that is compatible with current clients and libraries, it is necessary to use a dedicated port for this. Because it is anticipated that users will want to host non-secure and secure CouchDB databases on the same sever, we are therefor requesting a secure port, similar to TCP 443.
>>
>> On 24 Dec 2010, at 16:51, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>
>>> Thank you for your patience. We received the following question for you:
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Please justify and explain why a separate port number would be needed
>>> for a secure version of the protocol? IANA does not anymore anticipate
>>> allocating separate ports for secure versions as this is no longer
>>> necessary with modern security protocols. Same holds for new
>>> versions of the protocol (a version number should be included).
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> When we receive your reply, we will continue the processing of
>>> the request.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Pearl Liang
>>> ICANN/IANA
>>>
>>> On Tue Dec 14 11:08:43 2010, pearl.liang wrote:
>>>> On Sat Dec 04 00:04:28 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 22:36, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your submission for a user port number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please provide the current spec for the following?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, CouchDB uses HTTP 1.1 as defined in RFC 2616.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rationale for why CouchDB needs a distinct port from 80 was given
>>>>> in the application for TCP 5984. To summarise: TCP 80 is defined as
>>>>> HTTP for the World Wide Web, and CouchDB is a specialised
>>>>> application of HTTP that is commonly expected to run in parallel
>>>>> with a traditional web server. This same rationale should justify
>>>>> the application for a TSL/SSL port variation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The information is required to be reviewed by the current expert
>>>>>> review team designated by IESG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ***ORIGINAL TEMPLATE***
>>>> On Fri Dec 03 05:47:41 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Application for User Registered Port Number
>>>>>
>>>>> Name :
>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>>
>>>>> E-mail :
>>>>> nslater@tumbolia.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Protocol Number :
>>>>> TCP
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>
>>>>> Broadcast or Multicast used ?
>>>>> no
>>>>>
>>>>> How and what for Broadcast or Multicast is used (if used):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Description :
>>>>> This port will be for CouchDB HTTP traffic over an SSL connection.
>>>>> CouchDB traffic is currently assigned to TCP 5984 by IANA. Due to
>>>>> Host restrictions inherent to the HTTP protocol, SSL communications
>>>>> need to use a different port number to differentiate them from non-
>>>>> SSL communications from the same network address. Compare TCP 80
>>>>> and TCP 443.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name of the port :
>>>>> CouchDB over TLS/SSL
>>>>>
>>>>> Short name of the port :
>>>>> couchdbs
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
Most odd. Your response looks good to me, but judging from the email
you're responding to, they've already specifically said that reasoning
is no longer considered. Perhaps you should ask which modern security
protocols they're talking about and some pointers on where we might
look for an "automagical upgrade" which I've never heard of before.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> I'd like to get some peer review on my response to IANA here.
>
> CouchDB is a special use-case of HTTP 1.1 as justified in my previous application for TCP 5984. It is, however, still bound by the common limitations of HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS. In theory, HTTP 1.1 provides a mechanism to upgrade an established connection to a secure one, but in practice this is very rarely used, or in fact, implemented.
>
> If you wish to use HTTP 1.1 over SSL/TLS in a way that is compatible with current clients and libraries, it is necessary to use a dedicated port for this. Because it is anticipated that users will want to host non-secure and secure CouchDB databases on the same sever, we are therefor requesting a secure port, similar to TCP 443.
>
> On 24 Dec 2010, at 16:51, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>
>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>
>> Thank you for your patience. We received the following question for you:
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Please justify and explain why a separate port number would be needed
>> for a secure version of the protocol? IANA does not anymore anticipate
>> allocating separate ports for secure versions as this is no longer
>> necessary with modern security protocols. Same holds for new
>> versions of the protocol (a version number should be included).
>>
>> -----
>>
>> When we receive your reply, we will continue the processing of
>> the request.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Pearl Liang
>> ICANN/IANA
>>
>> On Tue Dec 14 11:08:43 2010, pearl.liang wrote:
>>> On Sat Dec 04 00:04:28 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 22:36, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your submission for a user port number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please provide the current spec for the following?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Formats :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Types :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, CouchDB uses HTTP 1.1 as defined in RFC 2616.
>>>>
>>>> The rationale for why CouchDB needs a distinct port from 80 was given
>>>> in the application for TCP 5984. To summarise: TCP 80 is defined as
>>>> HTTP for the World Wide Web, and CouchDB is a specialised
>>>> application of HTTP that is commonly expected to run in parallel
>>>> with a traditional web server. This same rationale should justify
>>>> the application for a TSL/SSL port variation.
>>>>
>>>>> The information is required to be reviewed by the current expert
>>>>> review team designated by IESG.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ***ORIGINAL TEMPLATE***
>>> On Fri Dec 03 05:47:41 2010, nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Application for User Registered Port Number
>>>>
>>>> Name :
>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>
>>>> E-mail :
>>>> nslater@tumbolia.org
>>>>
>>>> Protocol Number :
>>>> TCP
>>>>
>>>> Message Formats :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Message Types :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Message opcodes :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Message Sequences :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Protocol functions :
>>>> See TCP 5984.
>>>>
>>>> Broadcast or Multicast used ?
>>>> no
>>>>
>>>> How and what for Broadcast or Multicast is used (if used):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Description :
>>>> This port will be for CouchDB HTTP traffic over an SSL connection.
>>>> CouchDB traffic is currently assigned to TCP 5984 by IANA. Due to
>>>> Host restrictions inherent to the HTTP protocol, SSL communications
>>>> need to use a different port number to differentiate them from non-
>>>> SSL communications from the same network address. Compare TCP 80
>>>> and TCP 443.
>>>>
>>>> Name of the port :
>>>> CouchDB over TLS/SSL
>>>>
>>>> Short name of the port :
>>>> couchdbs
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>