Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry with port-numbers

That's a good question. I had argued that service names were independent 
of the transport protocol, but given the current text they aren't, so 
not clear how to handle it.

Maybe "other" or "proprietary" as the transport and leave it at that 
informally in the registry?

Joe

On 4/11/2011 1:19 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> All:
>
> We are in the process of officially combining the ports/service name
> registries.
>
> Stuart's registry (http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html) contains
> these two entries:
>
> panoply         Panoply multimedia composite transfer protocol
>                  Natarajan Balasundara<rajan at ipanoramii.com>
>                  Primary Transport Protocol: Proprietary
>                  Defined TXT keys: None
>
> parabay-p2p     Parabay P2P protocol
>                  Vishnu Varadaraj<vishnuv at parabay.com>
>                  Primary Transport Protocol: Proprietary
>                  Defined TXT keys: None
>
> There is a problem with the "Proprietary" transport protocol. The new
> port-numbers registry accepts only UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP as transport
> protocol (according to draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10 section 8.1.1).
>
> How do we deal with this one?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Michelle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg