Nut upsuser - Apr 2022 - Request for Assignment

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.

I will discuss the matter further with the IETF editor, but I am not optimistic.

Roger

Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 22:33:27 +0000
From: Sabrina Tanamal via RT <port-mod at iana.org>
To: ietf at rogerprice.org
Subject: [IANA #1229067] Port Number (401) Modification

Dear Roger,

We have a response from the port expert:

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.

====
If you have any questions, please let us know.

Best regards,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

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