Re: [port-srv-reg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and related issues

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 15 January 2010 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
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 DF79A3A682A; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:01:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xc9XjNjHPfKs; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745693A6816; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:01:35 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7bb6ae000001052-e6-4b503cfb57b8
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 99.23.04178.BFC305B4; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:01:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:01:31 +0100
Received: from [147.214.183.147] ([147.214.183.147]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:01:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4B503CFA.4010107@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:01:30 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
References: <201001111508.QAA08192@TR-Sys.de> <54E3D339-1E62-4BD1-9AA0-80F3C348724F@nokia.com> <201001141413.o0EEDBDD076210@stora.ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <201001141413.o0EEDBDD076210@stora.ogud.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2010 10:01:31.0000 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6200F80:01CA95C9]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and related issues
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, 15 Jan 2010 10:01:40 -0000

Olafur Gudmundsson skrev 2010-01-14 15:13:
> At 03:39 13/01/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 
>> > IMO, this basically treats SRV names as old port numbers were treated -
>> > i.e., ask for a name, get ALL transports. That's how port number
>> > assignments were done until recently, where now only the needed
>> > transport is assigned.
>> >
>> > So IMO a service means something only relative to a transport. However,
>> > it'd be useful to require the transport be specified only if the same
>> > name would mean different things for different transports. Do we ever
>> > see that happening?
>>
>> Right. Or, in other words, if you have a service name, it's yours for
>> all transports, just as ports used to be. (There are so many service
>> names that we can burn combinations that aren't used, and limit
>> interactions with IANA.)
>>
>> Lars
> 
> The important point is:
> Each service is going to have one or more transports that are "preferred",
> these preferences need to be noted in the registry.
> (this point applies both to port allocations and service names).
> 
> See section 5.1 of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00
> 
> for proposed search order when priority order is not known.
> 

I thought this was going to be covered in the reference that explains
how the SRV is used with service X. I think that is the most appropriate
place to indicate which protocols are expected to be supported and for
which usages which is the most appropriate.

>From the Service name registry point of view this is not needed
information. However, I agree that for the user of the service name it
is clearly of interest. But as I said before, it is service specific.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------