Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 17 September 2010 23:04 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 359B83A6962 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065,
BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9cnuF7H-sKyO for
<port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id E65403A68F3 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>;
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.217.198.68] (68.sub-75-217-198.myvzw.com [75.217.198.68])
(authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
o8HN4meo012121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C93F410.5090007@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:04:48 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <C8A6942D.282AF%michelle.cotton@icann.org> <E308508D-387D-4550-8960-1F74068B77EB@apple.com>
<4C87B342.3040508@isi.edu> <4C91DF48.5010009@ericsson.com>
<4C924978.4010602@isi.edu> <4C931DC6.1000006@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C931DC6.1000006@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:04:50 -0000
On 9/17/2010 12:50 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Joe Touch skrev 2010-09-16 18:44: >> >> >> On 9/16/2010 2:11 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >>> Joe Touch skrev 2010-09-08 18:01: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/7/2010 4:14 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote: >>>>> On 3 Sep, 2010, at 12:01, Michelle Cotton wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I agree with all the changes below. >>>>>> Regarding the last point, can the service name aliases for future >>>>>> registrations go in the notes column? >>>>>> >>>>>> Michelle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think there will be any future aliases. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see any reason to be allowing further creation of aliases that >>>>> add nothing except being a new name for something else that already exists. >>>> >>>> The burden falls on the owner of the port. If they want to ask for >>>> aliases, e.g., to shift from an old product name to a new one, I can't >>>> see why we would care. There is impact, but only on that port anyway. >>>> However, I'd restrict it to the owner of the port only. >>>> >>>> A good example of this would be the STUN/TURN stuff we discussed recently. >>>> >>> >>> I think we should strongly recommend against alias for the first case >>> like http and www. However STUN and TURN are not aliases, they are >>> compatible services that can co-exist on the same port. Thus I wouldn't >>> call them aliases at all. >> >> Any time more than one string maps to the same port number it's a kind >> of an 'alias'. The only way for the client to know the difference is via >> in-band information. >> >> I.e., we would allow aliases for: >> - different services >> - that can be resolved in-band >> >> Unless BOTH of those apply, we would not allow aliases except: >> >> a) legacy (www, http) >> b) to support changeover to the new namespace >> > > I think we are in agreement. Are the text clear enough on this in your > view. I think we can have it improved further to make the above clear. I tried to do so in the text I just posted. Joe
- [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Mark Mcfadden
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion Stuart Cheshire
- [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Michelle Cotton