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

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

does anybody know if these protocols are actually in use? 
do we WANT to limit registration to the 4 ietf protocols?
can we reclaim these (by asking the companies to change their
registration/withdraw their registration?)
we don't have a registration date for these?

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michelle Cotton [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:57 PM
> To: David Harrington; 'Lars Eggert'; 'Joe Touch'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry 
> with port-numbers
> 
> FYI...we believe these 2 (mentioned below) are the only 2
exceptions.
> How do you want to proceed?
> 
> --Michelle
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/12/11 1:18 AM, "David Harrington" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> > 
> > dbh 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail]
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:31 AM
> >> To: Joe Touch
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry
> >> with port-numbers
> >> 
> >> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Port-srv-reg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
> 
>