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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Alexey,

I agree about letting IANA handle the details on this; the note below
doesn't need to be in our doc, but could be useful to IANA. The goal is
to indicate unauthorized use better, to provide a more direct
disincentive towards squatting.

Joe

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Joe Touch wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> All the items above except for "Comments" are described in the doc, and
>> constitute the registration information. The comments field should, IMO,
>> be broken down into a few separate fields; I'm not sure any of these
>> need to be listed in the doc, however, since the information it presents
>> is administrative 'out-of-band' context.
>>  
>>
> Do we need to be that strict about what can go into Comments?
> I am fine with your proposal as well, but I don't think limiting scope
> of comments would be helpful to IANA. Michelle?
> 
>> Here's what I would break it into two fields:
>>
>>     Known Unauthorized Uses
>>     Assignment comments (de-registration, owner change, name change)
>>
>> I'm not sure it's appropriate to list the known unauthorized uses in the
>> same table as the authorized ones; I would prefer de-valuing that list
>> to a separate table on a separate page.
>>
> Works for me. Documenting unauthorized uses might be of value and I
> agree that keeping it separate is sensible.