You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
README description of Stdlib::Port:
Matches a valid TCP/UDP Port number.
Port 0 is reserved for both TCP and UDP and most implementations will reject it. It is now used when binding to tell the kernel to find an available port. Hence, configurations that are pedantic will want to disable it to avoid misconfiguration.
Expected Behavior
Either the description should say "any TCP/UDP port" and there is a type to represent valid port numbers (Interger[1, 65535]) or the lower bound is changed from 0 to 1. The latter change should apply to any derived type too.
Additional Context
Technically (by the original RFC), port 0 was reserved, but the behavior it now has when calling bind makes allowing the value slightly dangerous: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1340#page-7
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Technically I agree this is unlikely to happen for users. Changing this would be a backwards incompatible change though. If you submit a PR, I think it could be merged when the next major version bump is being prepared.
Describe the Bug
README description of
Stdlib::Port
:Matches a valid TCP/UDP Port number.
Port 0 is reserved for both TCP and UDP and most implementations will reject it. It is now used when binding to tell the kernel to find an available port. Hence, configurations that are pedantic will want to disable it to avoid misconfiguration.
Expected Behavior
Either the description should say "any TCP/UDP port" and there is a type to represent valid port numbers (
Interger[1, 65535]
) or the lower bound is changed from 0 to 1. The latter change should apply to any derived type too.Additional Context
Technically (by the original RFC), port 0 was reserved, but the behavior it now has when calling
bind
makes allowing the value slightly dangerous: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1340#page-7The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: