Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry

Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org> Wed, 24 August 2011 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rdk@krupczak.org>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F7921F8B56 for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9saWn66e-eWV for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uncasville.krupczak.org (uncasville.krupczak.org [192.24.251.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B837B21F8B27 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by uncasville.krupczak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12AD2404C4; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:46:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at krupczak.org
Received: from uncasville.krupczak.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (uncasville.krupczak.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lpl9A+WPcZ+y; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from uncasville.krupczak.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by uncasville.krupczak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99142404B9; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:46:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from rdk@localhost) by uncasville.krupczak.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p7O2kE5S029856; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:46:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:46:14 -0400
From: Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
Message-ID: <20110824024614.GF29306@uncasville.krupczak.org>
References: <6BA107CB-7E6F-4720-ABDF-7B0D0733D607@apple.com> <4E53BF1F.5040708@krupczak.org> <9A7A3E75-3F30-4A39-8D35-94D3C2C9381B@apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9A7A3E75-3F30-4A39-8D35-94D3C2C9381B@apple.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:41:02 -0700
Cc: Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org>, port-srv-reg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:45:15 -0000

Hi!

> Can you let us know for what specific purpose(s) you are using the
> "xmp" service name string in your code or on-the-wire protocols?

Do you guys have access to my original registration?  XMP stands for
XML Management Protocol (hey, I'm a programmer, not an author).  Its
the protocol that my software components and project use.  I
registered using the established protocol outlined at the time.  The
"service" name gets integrated into /etc/services, ldap/nis, x500 etc
for use with functions like getservbyname().  All of these procedures
is common and well-known.  Thats whats so frustrating about your email
and proposal.

> It seems clear that neither you nor the prior registrant of the
> "xmp" service name string are willing to change to a different name;
> they because as far as they are concerned they registered it first,
> and you because you consider your later registration to be more
> "official". No matter, we can't force either of you to do anything.
> It seems likely that you will both continue to use the same service
> name string, and deal with the resulting operational conflicts.

When did the other party "register" and with whom did they register?
What is the other xmp's product, etc?  Did you do any verification of
their claims.  When I chose xmp, I googled all over the net to look
for name clashes and *never* saw anything but xmpp which is distinct.
So, I'm kind of wondering just how widely deployed and ubiquitous it
really is.  

> If you can let us know how you are actually using the "xmp" service
> name string (what APIs, in what on-the-wire protocols, etc.) then we
> can at least document what manner of problems users are likely to
> experience when trying to use "xmp".

I use the name in getservbyname(), I use the string xmp in my wire
protocol, I use the string in loads of configuration, and the
protocol/service has been incorporated into the OpenNMS project.

Thanks,

Bobby