Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:18:25 -0700 From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: Josef Karthauser <joe@pavilion.net> Cc: Dominic Mitchell <Dom.Mitchell@palmerharvey.co.uk>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services Message-ID: <37A0B711.DA388A27@gorean.org> References: <xzpu2qrad76.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907281735570.15263-100000@dt011n65.san.rr.com> <19990729090420.A98489@pavilion.net> <19990729110131.A50938@voodoo.pandhm.co.uk> <37A0A76B.F09E9AF1@gorean.org> <19990729210425.A21377@pavilion.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Josef Karthauser wrote: > Ok - but it's a bit misleading having both values in /etc/services.. > > Shouldn't be: > http 80/tcp www www-http #World Wide Web HTTP > http 80/udp www www-http #World Wide Web HTTP > > Should be: > http 80/tcp www www-http #World Wide Web HTTP > http 80/udp #[not used] > > Don't you think? At least that way you don't have to read all of the > rfcs to construct a firewall ;). You should probably add them both anyway, but that's beside the point. I'm not sure if adding comments like that would be worth it, however I tend to think that it is better to just leave it as is since that way if something changes in the future, we're already set. Also, "not used" might lead someone to believe that they could use that UDP port for their own little project. I suggested that we add the link to the IANA page way back when, but there are still some people that believe that our services list contains all the information they need. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37A0B711.DA388A27>