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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 18 January 2010 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE043A6921; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:14:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 5GXHIYWhKuOB; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94753A6767; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:14:19 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7bb6ae000001052-f0-4b54509745c0
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EE.BC.04178.790545B4; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:14:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:14:14 +0100
Received: from [147.214.183.147] ([147.214.183.147]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:14:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4B545096.4020300@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:14:14 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
References: <201001151840.TAA14644@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201001151840.TAA14644@TR-Sys.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2010 12:14:14.0775 (UTC) FILETIME=[C024F070:01CA9837]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: port-srv-reg@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] [tsvwg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and relates issues
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of updates to service name and transport protocol port registry <port-srv-reg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/port-srv-reg>
List-Post: <mailto:port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:14:21 -0000

Hi Alfred,

I have now read draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00 again.

Me personally hasn't really digged into the issues that you bring up in
your document, I don't think I am alone in this. Thus, I think it would
be jumping to conclusions that there are agreement on your suggested
approach simple because you haven't received comments on them yet.

>From the perspective of trying to advance draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports,
we do come down to trying to find the reasonable interface between our
documents.

On the issue of the protocol label for a given service name. I find it
reasonable that your document do extended the registry with an
additional column that enumerates any non-default protocol label order.
I get the impression that you want this to be described in
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports due to that it should be included in any
service name registration request.

I had hoped that we could avoid normative dependencies from IANA ports
towards draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify. This to enable
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports to be approved and published as soon as
possible.

>From my perspective I see three ways forward:

1. We write nothing about the protocol label in regards to Service name
registrations and lets draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify update the
Registration RFC.

2. We include some text about the need to specify protocol label
priority list unless the default one (also included listed in
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports) but pushing of the explanation about the
issues to your document using a normative reference.

3. We fudge something together in the middle trying to avoid a normative
reference.

I think I am leaning towards 1 personally even if it has some obvious
downside in that the registration rules information will not be
contained to a single document. However, I think IANA's registration
template can clearly make it clear to applicants that you need to read
things in both.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------