Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!SCRC-YUKON.ARPA!Margulies
From: Margulies@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Collisions
Message-ID: <860514074922.7.MARGULIES@REDWING.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 14-May-86 07:49:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: REDWING.860514074922.7.MARGULIES
Posted: Wed May 14 07:49:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 14-May-86 22:49:01 EDT
References: <860514-023737-4874@Xerox>
Sender: jsc@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 26
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    Date: Wed, 14 May 86 02:37:25 PDT
    From: Murray.pa@Xerox.COM

    One word of caution.... Xerox managed to get off on the wrong foot in
    the Ethernet packet type assignment business.

    If you administer a group of ports, I suggest that the ground rules
    include publishing a who-to-contact as well as a simple (one line?)
    description of its function. Otherwise people will flame at you when you
    won't answer questions.

Fine with me.  

    The proprietary aspect might complicate that attitude. I don't think
    that objection really holds water. It's too easy to look at the bits on
    an ethernet.

I expect that proprietary protocols will be fairly rare.  Mostly, I
expect that people just won't have the time or inclination to document.
I really cannot see why someone would insist on a listing of `Foobar
Company proprietary protocol 1'.


    I like your second suggestion, but somebody is bound to ignore it
    because it takes an extra packet to get started.