[Nut-upsuser] Request for Assignment

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On April 7, 2022 12:13:21 PM GMT+03:00, Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> wrote:
>I have received the following disappointing reply from IANA.  It was precisely 
>the IETF review/IESG approval  that I was asking for.
>
>Meantime it seems to me to be an anomaly that the Network UPS Tools project is 
>not able to use port ups intended for UPS management.

It is a bit stupid but nut uses a different port for so long that, to be honest, I do not think that it matters any more.



>
>
>
>This request is declined.
>
>Per RFC6335, in order to deassign a port, we need extensive information on its 
>current deployment. Even if that were to happen for port 401, it would not
>be reassignable as requested because:
>RFC6335 requires that system ports be assigned only by IETF review or IESG 
>approval (Sec 8.1.2)
>RFC7605 advises against any further assignment of system ports (Sec 7.3)
>
>Finally, the current assignment that uses TLS should be more than sufficient to 
>support STARTTLS on the same port, so no new assignment for a separate
>secure port should be needed, regardless of in what range it is requested.
>
She was not wrong, if we factor in scarcity of port resources and the way STARTTLS works

wolfy