tlsport & ntpport

[Eric S. Raymond]

Richard Laager via devel <devel at ntpsec.org>:
> And the question would be how to deal with a request for a port only.
> There seem like two ways to allow that:
> 
> 8: ask 10123
> 9: ask :10123
> 
> #9 is not ambiguous with anything, but looks weird and is almost
> ambiguous with #5, as ::10123 is an IPv6 address (albeit not one that is
> likely to be reachable).
> 
> #8 is probably not ambiguous in practice, though technically it is a
> valid domain name (albeit one that requires a DNS search path).

I'd prefer 9 myself, but I'll have to look at the implementation complexity.
On the one hand, I like the syntactic clue that this is a port number. On
the other hand that is definitely going to complicate the value processing some. 
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20190202/c0362896/attachment.bin>