Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 08 September 2010 16:06 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 8AC8C3A67B1 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 phi7SipYCte6 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96383A68E0 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.212.217.53] (53.sub-75-212-217.myvzw.com [75.212.217.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o88G6iEC004408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C87B495.6080804@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:06:45 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
References: <6EC7B8A7-C3B3-4E63-85A9-0DC31F4D45B4@nokia.com> <5D2DD7D7-A429-4CFC-BD27-EF09CEF5AE1B@apple.com> <29A788ED-1768-4BD8-B0BA-0D79C7B9843B@nokia.com> <4C80B256.3090007@isode.com> <820B0E63-61CA-490F-9D3B-91E0D7830BA2@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <820B0E63-61CA-490F-9D3B-91E0D7830BA2@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: o88G6iEC004408
X-ISI-4-69-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: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:06:54 -0000

Hi, all,

On 9/7/2010 4:16 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 3 Sep, 2010, at 01:31, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>>>> 2. Service Name Rules
>>>>
>>>> I liked Joe's earlier suggestion to disallow all-numeric service
>>>> names, to avoid service names that look like a numeric port number.
>>>> However, even with that rule, we still allow service names like
>>>> this: "6000-6063" (looks like the X Window System port range). Do we
>>>> care? We could prevent that by requiring that all service names
>>>> contain at least one alphabetic character.
>>>>
>>> I like that proposal.
>>>
>> Fine with me.
>
>
> I've made this change. The text now says:
>
> Valid service names:
>
> o MUST be at least 1 character and no more than 15 characters long
>
> o MUST contain only US-ASCII [ANSI.X3-4.1986] letters 'A' - 'Z' and
> 'a' - 'z', digits '0' - '9', and hyphens ('-', ASCII 0x2D or
> decimal 45)
>
> o MUST contain at least one letter ('A' - 'Z' or 'a' - 'z')
>
> o MUST NOT begin or end with a hyphen
>
> The reason for requiring at least one letter is to avoid service
> names like "23" (could be confused with a numeric port number) or
> "6000-6063" (could be confused with a numeric port number range).

But 3-4-5 can't be confused with a range, nor would 6000-45. AFAICT, 
range-like entries can and should be avoided by the registration 
procedure, the same way we avoid double hyphens that look too similar to 
single-hyphen names already registered.

FWIW, I still don't like adding the "must have at least one alpha" rule, 
but IF we keep it, here's the ABNF:

	NAME = *(1*NUM [HYPHEN]) ALPHA *([HYPHEN] 1*ALPHANUM)

> Although service names may contain both upper-case and lower-case
> letters, case is ignored for comparison purposes, so both "http" and
> "HTTP" denote the same service.

Service names are already noted as case-insensitive. We typically record 
them in the database in lower case only; we do NOT retain any case as 
provided by the registrant to discourage the notion that case matters.

Joe