Re: common aliases document

Russ Wright <Wright@lbl.gov> Thu, 02 May 1996 16:39 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05918; 2 May 96 12:39 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05912; 2 May 96 12:39 EDT
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24082; 2 May 96 12:39 EDT
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA11323>; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:32:08 -0700
Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA11316>; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:32:06 -0700
Received: from cnrmail.lbl.gov (buster.lbl.gov) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA27146>; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:32:05 -0700
Received: from [131.243.254.16] by cnrmail.lbl.gov with ESMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1); Thu, 2 May 1996 08:35:11 -0800
X-Sender: wright@cnrmail.lbl.gov
Message-Id: <v03006912adae9162e3e3@[131.243.254.16]>
In-Reply-To: <3188DC36.9BF@ds.internic.net>
References: <199605011929.UAA22692@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> <v0300690eadae89c2193c@[131.243.254.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:31:59 -0700
To: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@ds.internic.net>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Russ Wright <Wright@lbl.gov>
Subject: Re: common aliases document
Cc: ietf-ids@umich.edu, uswg@isi.edu
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uswg@isi.edu
Precedence: bulk

At 11:00 AM  -0500 5/2/96, Ryan Moats wrote:
>Russ Wright wrote:
>>
>> At 08:22 AM  -0500 5/2/96, Ryan Moats wrote:
>> >Martin Hamilton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> IDS folk - here's a new draft of that DNS aliases document.  The
>> >> emphasis has changed to direct people first at the IANA assigned
>> >> numbers stuff, and then at special cases.
>> >>
>> >> USWG and namedroppers folk - here's a little something we've been
>> >> cooking up.  Feedback sought!
>> >>
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Martin-
>> >
>> >A thought from reading through:
>> >
>> >Under the special cases wais != z39.50. Thus, there should be two
>> >separate entries, wais AND z39.50.
>>
>> Valid point, however please keep in mind that we aren't trying to list all
>> the services out there. The idea is that you use the IANA-registered name
>> if appropriate or one specified in the protocol's RFC.
>>
>> Russ
>
>True.  I found the mention of this fact when re-reading the
>draft.  It might allievate confusion if that comment were either
>re-stated in the special cases section or some discussion is added for
>the situation where things seem to want to share the same port number.
>

I think if we just remove the "alias for z39-50" comment, that will address
your first concern.  As for protocols that share the same port- what a
mess.  Perhaps we should add some wording in section 4 about port sharing
(just to state that some services do share the same port).

Russ