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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

if there are more cases like this, or more otherwise special cases, we may want to make edits during AUTH48. For example, allow "other" as a transport protocol tag in cases like this.

How far along with the merging are you?

Lars

On 2011-4-12, at 6:35, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg