[Nut-upsuser] Request for Assignment

Manuel Wolfshant wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Thu Apr 7 10:19:38 BST 2022

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


More information about the Nut-upsuser mailing list