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: <860515074902.9.MARGULIES@REDWING.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 07:49:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: REDWING.860515074902.9.MARGULIES
Posted: Thu May 15 07:49:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 04:37:27 EDT
References: <12206734278.69.JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    Date: Wed 14 May 86 19:54:03-EDT
    From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

	    Right. What happens if you pick a name for your private
    protocol that happens to be exactly the same as the name someone else
    picked for their private protocol? You are merely using strings
    instead of numbers; the same problems can happen. The set of possible
    identifiers is still pretty small, if people use descriptive english
    words for services.
	    Now, if you preface all your private services with some
    personal string, e.g. 'SYMBOLICS-', as in 'SYMBOLICS-NEW-FILE' then
    maybe you have a valid point.

That is exactly my plan.


	    Noel
    -------