Re: [tsvwg] [port-srv-reg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and relates issues

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Sat, 06 February 2010 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 3EC343A6CA8; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:16:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 gQnR7U5diJjW; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:16:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479063A6803; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:16:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.95] (pool-71-106-88-10.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.88.10] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o16KHAJr016318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B6DCE46.1030501@isi.edu>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:17:10 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alfred ? <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [port-srv-reg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and relates issues
References: <201001151840.TAA14644@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201001151840.TAA14644@TR-Sys.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC4F046E2A15A409102301647"
X-MailScanner-ID: o16KHAJr016318
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, port-srv-reg@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: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:16:48 -0000

Hi, Alfred,

Taking this up a level to summarize. there are two points. Let me know
if this is consistent with your understanding...

Joe

------
#1 -- I think (correct me if wrong) that you want service names without
assigned port numbers, to be registered only for  specific protocols.

For services with assigned port numbers, we assign a triple:

	namestring	transport	portnum

There's no one index to that triple. The index is the
<namestring,transport> pair, i.e.:

	namestring,transport -> unique portnum

For services, I can see why we would assign (or, in this case, register):

	namestring	transport

------
#2 -- There's an interesting question of 'who gets to add transport
protocols to a service that exists', regardless of whether the service
has a port or not.

I think IANA can handle that as it happens. I had been assuming that
ownership of that was done at the time the service name was assigned,
but that clearly needs potential override for abandoned services, e.g.

------