Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry with port-numbers

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

The SRV spec requires the DNS entry use _tcp or _udp. I had a discussion 
with Gorry that sometimes these don't really matter (some use these 
entries and still use another transport, such as SCTP or DCCP).

We said in the ports doc that the transport must be listed, and only 
certain transports were accepted:

---
    o  Transport Protocol(s): The transport protocol(s) for which an
       assignment is requested MUST be provided.  This field is currently
       limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.  Requests
       without any port assignment and only a service name are still
       required to indicate which protocol the service uses.
---

I would tell the applicant they have to pick a transport, e.g., the one 
they intend to lookup the service name under (even if they use a 
proprietary transport later).

 From IANA's viewpoint, it's just going to end up being a TCP or UDP or 
somesuch registration.

Joe

On 4/12/2011 12:57 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> FYI...we believe these 2 (mentioned below) are the only 2 exceptions.
> How do you want to proceed?
>
> --Michelle
>
>
>
> On 4/12/11 1:18 AM, "David Harrington"<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> dbh
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail]
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:31 AM
>>> To: Joe Touch
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry
>>> with port-numbers
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> if there are more cases like this, or more otherwise special
>>> cases, we may want to make edits during AUTH48. For example,
>>> allow "other" as a transport protocol tag in cases like this.
>>>
>>> How far along with the merging are you?
>>>
>>> Lars
>>>
>>> On 2011-4-12, at 6:35, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> That's a good question. I had argued that service names
>>> were independent of the transport protocol, but given the
>>> current text they aren't, so not clear how to handle it.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe "other" or "proprietary" as the transport and leave
>>> it at that informally in the registry?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/2011 1:19 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
>>>>> All:
>>>>>
>>>>> We are in the process of officially combining the
>>> ports/service name
>>>>> registries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart's registry
>>> (http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html) contains
>>>>> these two entries:
>>>>>
>>>>> panoply         Panoply multimedia composite transfer protocol
>>>>>                  Natarajan Balasundara<rajan at ipanoramii.com>
>>>>>                  Primary Transport Protocol: Proprietary
>>>>>                  Defined TXT keys: None
>>>>>
>>>>> parabay-p2p     Parabay P2P protocol
>>>>>                  Vishnu Varadaraj<vishnuv at parabay.com>
>>>>>                  Primary Transport Protocol: Proprietary
>>>>>                  Defined TXT keys: None
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a problem with the "Proprietary" transport
>>> protocol. The new
>>>>> port-numbers registry accepts only UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP
>>> as transport
>>>>> protocol (according to draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10
>>> section 8.1.1).
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we deal with this one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> --Michelle
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>