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

[Michelle Cotton <[e-mail]>]

In our experience assign = register.
The language used often does depend on the parameter.
For example we usually use "register" when it comes to media-types and
registries that contain names rather than values.

This language can be clarified and better defined in updates to RFC5226
which I have started working on.

Michelle



On 1/11/10 4:46 AM, "Lars Eggert" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 2010-1-11, at 14:27, [e-mail] wrote:
>> (1)
>> Paraphrased from collected wisdom:
>> 
>>   "allocate" or "assign" :
>>         IANA choses the code point, hands it out and
>>         publishes it; if the requester proposes a value,
>>         it is not binding for IANA and can be changed
>>         without further notice/interaction.
>> 
>>   "register" :
>>         The requester usually proposes an (already established) code
>>         point, and if feasible, IANA accepts and publishes the value;
>>         otherwise, IANA must contact the requester for another
>>         proposal and iterate the procedure until acceptable.
> 
> I'd like to hear if IANA is of the same opinion. My impression was that assign
> = register.
> 
>> If I understand correctly, under the new regime, Service Names will
>> be "registered" and *all* Port Numbers (if any) will be "assigned".
>> Is that correct?
>> (The draft says the requester may "suggest" a value "for allocation".)
> 
> The draft was written under the assumption that assign = register.
> 
>> (2)
>> It also should be pointed out that in the most recent predraft
>> I've seen (December 2, 2009 version), there still is no possibility
>> in the proposed registration template to distinguish between
>> a request for a Well Known port number without a proposed value and
>> a request for a Registered Port without a proposed port number --
>> both have to supply "Port Number: ANY".
> 
> And that's on purpose: for both regions of the port number space, requesters
> may (but need not) suggest a number
> 
>> (3)
>> Furthermore, to make sensible use of Service Names w/o assigned
>> port number, the Transport Protocol(s) field should not be made
>> optional (as in the predraft I got), but mandatory; otherwise
>> the clarified rules for SRV owner naming would lack a fundament.
> 
> Why? A service name is a name for a service, and not for a service/transport
> combination.
> 
> Lars
> 
>> (The need for having registered {Service Name, Protocol} pairs was
>> the main reason for the original Service Prefix registry proposal.)
>> Thus, I strongly suggest to strike the phrase,
>>   "If assignment of a port number is desired,"
>> in the description of the Transport Protocol(s) field and
>> strike "(if port number requested)" in the overview in 8.1,
>> precding the bullets for the template fields.
>> 
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>>  Alfred.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
>> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
>> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
>> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
>> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
>> 
>