Re: [port-srv-reg] ACTION ITEMS - final updates - ports doc

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, David,

The list cuts both ways. Yes, they can claim compliance with the IANA
registry - they can do that now, though.

Anyone checking that claim would find that they explicitly violated the
claim. We already have such notes, where some are labeled more blatantly
than others, e.g.:

########### PORT 90 also being used unofficially by Pointcast #########

##########      106     Unauthorized use by insecure poppassd protocol

########### Possible Conflict of Port 222 with "Masqdialer"#############
### Contact for Masqdialer is Charles Wright <cpwright&villagenet.com>##

#####  Microsoft (unoffically) using 1232     #####

#### Port 2370 Unofficially used by Compaq ####

########### 3300-3301  Unauthorized Use by SAP R/3   ######

We ought to be uniform in our treatment of these entries. Also note that
this isn't adding information; we already track and post that information.

Finally, I think we can be more explicit:

Unauthorized use by XXX in violation of RFC NNN.

Joe



David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recommend against having the "Known Unauthorized Uses" field.
> I think this would encourage continued use of the unassigned srv/port.
> 
> Syslog WG wrote a document explaining why syslog is not interoprable -
> it documented how everybody does it differently - and vendors claim
> compliance to that RFC.
> Somebody will claim "compliance" to the IANA registry that lists their
> unauthorized usage.
> 
> dbh
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 7:23 AM
>> To: Joe Touch
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] ACTION ITEMS - final updates - ports doc
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2010-5-19, at 4:01, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> The current list of registration information is listed in 
>> Section 8.1:
>>>>>     Registration Administrative Contact (REQUIRED)
>>>>>     Registration Technical Contact (REQUIRED)
>>>>>     Service Name (REQUIRED)
>>>>>     Port Number (OPTIONAL)
>>>>>     Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED if port number requested)
>>> I think we agreed to make this "(REQUIRED)" in all cases.
>> a port number isn't required for when only a service name is 
>> requested, no?
>>
>>>>>     Service Code (only REQUIRED for DCCP)
>>>>>     Description (REQUIRED)
>>>>>     Reference (REQUIRED)
>>> It might be useful to move the service name and transport 
>> protocol to
>>> the top of the list, and indicate that the pair are the "key",
> i.e.,
>>> they define the service.
>>>
>>> I would suggest adding the following two OPTIONAL fields to the
> set
>>> above, which are NOT provided by the applicant:
>>>
>>> 	Known Unauthorized Uses
>>> 	Assignment comments (de-registration, owner/name change, etc.)
>> Can you provide text for those two, so we understand a little 
>> better what they'd be about?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lars
>>