zane, I'm going to provide comments here locally first to make sure
we're all on the same page. Once I do that, please respond back to the
iana with what I said if we're all in agreement
On 08/25/2011 04:58 PM, Pearl Liang via RT wrote:
The Port Experts Team has review your application (included below).
The team has the following questions with respect to your request:
-----
I'd like to summarize what I understand of the application, and then ask
a question or two:
This application is for an additional TCP port 49000 for a service
called "matahari", to be used for configuration management of QMF/QPid
implementations. Justification for this port assignment seems to be
that privileged communications must be separated from normal operations,
and that QMF will run atop Matahari. Given this, aren't we really
talking about a newer version of AMQP? Could not the AMQP version be
bumped? We seek more information as to why precisely different ports
should be used.
(response to iana)
matahari is a specific usage of AMQP (via an implementation called qpid
(qpid.apache.org)). The reason for a separate port is that end users
may want to run a vanilla AMQP service on their hosts which is logically
separate from the matahari AMQP bus. We cannot force generic users of
AMQP to coexist their services with ours, so we request a separate port
so that our specific usage of AMQP can remain logically separate. Also,
QMF does not run atop matahari. Matahari runs atop QMF, which itself
runs atop qpid (which is the AMQP implementation)
Also, there is an inconsistency in the application:
The applicant has stated that multicast may be used, and yet the
application is only for TCP. This is generally inadvisable and
impracticable, given the state machine that TCP uses.
(internal comments)
multicast does not need to be used. This is just point to point TCP.
AMQP itself can optionally use multicast when running clustered brokers
via Corosync/Openais, but I don't think we will ever need to run
clustered brokers in a matahari deployment. So I think mention of
multicast here should just be removed
(response to iana)
Multicast mention here was a mistake. This is just pure point to point TCP