couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IANA #411617] Application for port-number: couchdbs
Date Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:47:56 GMT
Sorry Noah, meant to reply earlier.

If the argument that allows 80/443 for http/https is no longer enough,
I don't see how we'll get this registration approved.

Is it possible to listen on one port and handle http and https
correctly? I didn't think so, hence it listens on a different port.

B.

On 14 February 2011 12:30, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> Anyone?
>
> On 8 Feb 2011, at 20:53, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> Help appreciated.
>>
>> He raises a good point though, as those links don't work now.
>>
>> I'm not sure what level of description they require.
>>
>> Probably nothing more than a handful of paragraphs to explain how CouchDB is a special
use-case for HTTP. In the original submission for TCP 5984, I pointed out that TCP 80 is specifically
reserved for "World Wide Web HTTP." My argument hinged on the fact that CouchDB is expected
to be run on a machine (perhaps on a private interface) that is simultaneously serving up
this kind of "World Wide Web" traffic, and so this warranted a separate port.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> Dear Noah Slater:
>>>
>>> Thank you for your patience while your application was being reviewed.
>>> The expert review team still has questions for clarifications with respect
>>> to your request.
>>>
>>> - You provided the following for couchdb (#5984):
>>>
>>> http://www.couchdbwiki.com/index.php?title=CouchDb_Quick_Overview
>>> http://www.couchdbwiki.com/index.php?title=Technical_Overview
>>> http://www.couchdbwiki.com/index.php?title=HTTP_REST_API
>>>
>>> Do you have an updated description of the protocol CouchDB over TLS/SSL?
>>>
>>> - It will also be useful to include a fundamental description in
>>> the template itself rather than points.  URLs are useful, but they might
>>> not be reachable in the future.  IESG requires that the technical
>>> description shall be documented in the application for future
>>> reference purposes.
>>>
>>> If we do not receive the information within 30 days (i.e. 2011-03-10),
>>> your request will be resolved without prejudice, as a matter of
>>> administrative procedure.
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message