Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 9/6/2010 11:33 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2010, at 10:20, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> If we want to require an alpha - which would be fine - both the English
>> and BNF would need to be revised, AND we would need to re-scrub the
>> current table and create a new list of corrective aliases for legacy
>> names that wouldn't work, if any (I don't think there are).
>
> I just checked the current ports list for any service names containing text of the form "number-number", and found only three:
>
> mil-2045-47001
> ecovisiong6-1
> 802-11-iapp
>
> All contain other letters as well, so it's not a problem.
>
> I don't think this is a big shock to any of us. I would have been
> surprised if there were any short name that was just "number-number",
> and indeed there is not. That no one has registered a short name like
> this in the decades leading up to now is also a good sign that it
> would not be not an unreasonable limitation to prohibit such names in
> the future.

IMO, we should decide the acceptable syntax based on what we require, 
not necessarily just what has been used in the past (otherwise we'd be 
allowing ".", "+", and a few others).

The sole reason for excluding numbers-only was to require the 
translation step between service name and port number. There's no 
similar reason to exclude the "number*-number*" format.

Joe