couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:16:07 GMT
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 <nslater@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 <nslater@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
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message