From owner-cvs-all Sat Feb 21 13:10:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18904 for cvs-all-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:10:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from red.juniper.net (red.juniper.net [208.197.169.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA18898 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:10:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pst@juniper.net) Received: from heap.juniper.net (heap.juniper.net [208.197.169.248]) by red.juniper.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03033; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:10:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from heap.juniper.net (localhost.juniper.net [127.0.0.1]) by heap.juniper.net (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA23019; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:10:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199802212110.NAA23019@heap.juniper.net> To: "Stephen J. Roznowski" cc: dg@root.com, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Status of kern/5402 -- can someone process? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:22:41 EST." <199802210322.WAA05064@istari.home.net> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:10:09 -0800 From: Paul Traina Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk The problem is that the "IANA" standard isn't the standard. It's a new standard that adds no value and considerable confusion to the issue. When a majority of other UNIX hosts have changed to this standard, we should think about it. Not until then. The IANA port range change was a mistake. Paul In message <199802210322.WAA05064@istari.home.net>, "Stephen J. Roznowski" writ es: > > From: David Greenman > > > > >On 31 Dec 1997, I submitted a PR (kern/5402) updating in_pcb.c to > > >reflect current IANA port ranges.... > > > > > >Any chance of getting someone to process this (or close it)? > > > > Last I recall on this subject was that our current port ranges were the > > desired ones and certain people might become murderous if they were changed > . > > Well, I can't really think of a technical reason why one range should > be preferred over the other, and in that case, I would have hoped that > FreeBSD would follow the "standard". > > I'd appreciate hearing what the objections are (privately is fine). > > If the architects are in agreement to keep the existing port range, > then this PR can be closed. > > Thanks, > -SR > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message