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

[Bobby Krupczak <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

> I was IETF transport area director when this effort to merge the two registries got started. From the IETF perspective, we were happy to see Apple wanting to merge their private and our "official" registry, precisely because this will in the future avoid name clashes. We can argue whether Apple should have done this sooner, but they are trying to do the right thing now (and have been for a few years, this effort took some time to progress in the IETF.)

I think its a good thing too.  However, going forward, you guys (the 
IETF) really should pinch companies that try to do ad hoc registries 
then legitimize them by then bringing them to the IETF.  In the future, 
perhaps the IETF make a policy that IETF registries take precedence over 
ad hoc registries.  Otherwise, the IETF sets themselves up for more of 
this kind of thing.  I cannot stress this enough.

> It's not Apple. Stuart send out his email as one of the authors of the IETF RFC-to-be, because he had the contact information of the folks who registered service names with Apple, and he also contacted the respective IANA registrants. (The [e-mail] list on the CC has on it the respective IETF area directors, authors, WG chairs and IANA representatives.)

I dont think he realizes how apple-centric his email and persona is. 
Its difficult to separate the person/project from the company behind it 
and in this case bonjour is so tightly bound to Apple products.

> I hope that Stuarts emails haven't left you upset. For each name conflict, he is trying to determine whether the Apple-assigned name and the IANA assigned name are still in active use. In several cases, at least one of them wasn't, which means that that particular clash was easy to resolve. In your case, both assignees use the service name, which complicates the situation.

No biggie at all, I've got very thick skin and am a big boy.

See my previous email about coming up with another, more cute 
service/protocol name.

Thanks,

Bobby