Re: Updating IANA "Operating System Names" registry
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 27 January 2010 09:07 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87813A691F for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:07:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11mSSJ0Camsb for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4B63A676A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Na3rr-000Gy2-2a; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:07:19 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:07:18 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating IANA "Operating System Names" registry
Message-ID: <67600F318C5C1A2DCFD4C503@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <201001261815.o0QIFnC8007603@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: <bb9e09ee1001241239r75f755canaed5121f7745886d@mail.gmail.com> <201001261815.o0QIFnC8007603@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:07:15 -0000
--On Tuesday, January 26, 2010 13:15 -0500 Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> The IANA registry "Operating System Names" found at >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/operating-system-names is >> missing a few recent common OSes. > > More to the point, who uses this registry and who cares? It > is old, and probably stopped serving a useful purpose years > ago. > > What protocols make use of the registry? Sigh. The FTP SYST command, among other things. SYST is much less important now than it was a few decades ago when there was a lot more diversity of hardware architecture and operating systems, but there is what we would now describe as a normative reference from RFC 959 (STD 9) to this registry. The DNS HINFO record is also supposed to use them. While I haven't see a lot of uses of HINFO recently in the public DNS, we haven't deprecated the RR type either. I have generated an errata entry for RFC 959 noting that SYST should point to this registry rather than pointing more vaguely to "Assigned Numbers". I will leave similar comments on the definition of HINFO and possibly a modification to the new FTP Commands and Extensions registry (to note that this registry specifies the parameter space for SYST) to someone who has more energy and time for that kind of work. With a quarter-century's hindsight, it is clear that this registry, and the names in it, should have used structured names of some style such as OperatingSystem Delimiter Version Delimiter Subversion possibly with explicit registration for only the first element, but it is a little late now. Getting the list up to date and into shape would clearly require significant work, but I don't think we should discourage new registrations by anyone who thinks that particular entries are needed. > Absent a real usage, the registry should either be shutdown, > or just quietly left alone. I don't see how one can shut down a registry that is used normatively by two full standards (FTP and DNS) without first deprecating the FTP Command and the DNS RR that use it. Continuing the long-standing practice of neglect unless new entries are actually needed seems entirely reasonable and has the advantage of not requiring any action. In general, it is probably better to believe that registries should be updated when someone has a substantive need for new entries than to try to create some abstract requirement to add entries for their own sake. I am tempted to ask why we are even wasting time discussing this registry, but I won't. john
- Updating IANA "Operating System Names" registry Anthony Bryan
- Re: Updating IANA "Operating System Names" regist… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Updating IANA "Operating System Names" regist… Thomas Narten
- Re: Updating IANA "Operating System Names" regist… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Updating IANA "Operating System Names" regist… John C Klensin