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

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Wed, 24 August 2011 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
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 2C80121F8AE6 for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 CLDfrWNRJUSf for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C618E21F8B02 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7O7EN1g023186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:14:24 +0300
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.2 at fit.nokia.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DF1AB3C-66D2-44F9-8052-E441AD09D02C"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E53BF1F.5040708@krupczak.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:14:19 +0300
Message-Id: <1E9B995A-044E-467D-858B-F41FB22290D2@nokia.com>
References: <6BA107CB-7E6F-4720-ABDF-7B0D0733D607@apple.com> <4E53BF1F.5040708@krupczak.org>
To: Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:14:20 +0300 (EEST)
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: 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 07:13:21 -0000

Hi, Bobby,

On 2011-8-23, at 17:54, Bobby Krupczak wrote:
> Apple then decides it wants to make it official, gets the IETF to combine it with their own *official* service/port registry.

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.)

Unfortunately, in your particular case, a clash still happened. I fully understand that this is dissappointing. This is why we are now looking for a way to de-conflict the two uses of the serve name.

> Now, Apple wants *me* to change the name of my service that was registered according to the rules and registered with the official organization and registry.

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 port-srv-reg@ietf.org list on the CC has on it the respective IETF area directors, authors, WG chairs and IANA representatives.)

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.

In my personal opinion, the best we can do in this case is to document the conflict in the unified registry, and suggest to both assignees that their particular piece of software should attempt to verify that a peer found by resolving the service name is in fact implementing the expected protocol. How exactly that is done is something that remains up to the individual implementation. Do you believe this could be a way forward here?

Thanks,
Lars