Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA!DCP
From: DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Collisions
Message-ID: <860514143607.6.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 14-May-86 14:36:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: FIREBIRD.860514143607.6.DCP
Posted: Wed May 14 14:36:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 02:00:15 EDT
References: <12206659223.23.PATTERSON@BLUE.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    Date: 14 May 86 13:01:46 EDT
    From: Ross Patterson <PATTERSON@BLUE.RUTGERS.EDU>

    Yes, but then you have collision problems with protocol names. Most people
    would use acronyms, not word-by-word forms. You still need a Socket Czar,
    only now sockets have a (reasonably) human-understandable format (i.e TELNET
    instead of 23.)
 
Go read Benson's message again.  He said that private protocols would be
rather long contact names, possibly including the vendor/entity that
implemented it as part of the name.  People who use short names or
acronyms are anti-social.  Standard contact-names that correspond to
RFCs could still be administered by a Czar, e.g., TELNET, SUPDUP, ECHO,
but private protocols would have names like SYMBOLICS-NFILE.

Benson and I have already colided, AND WE'RE ON THE SAME FLOOR OF THE
SAME BUILDING OF THE SAME COMPANY.  Since numbers don't mean anything,
we both happened to pick 666 for our private port number.