Re: [port-srv-reg] Questions about the Port Template forms for the ports document actions

[Michelle Cotton <[e-mail]>]

Did everyone see this?  Please respond as soon as possible as the document
is in the RFC-Editor's queue and we're trying to get this all completed.

Thank you,

Michelle


On 5/4/11 9:24 AM, "Pearl Liang" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> Since the I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports has been approved, we are also in the
> process modifying the template forms.  The existing template forms are
> available at:
> 
> Port Number Application: http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl
> Modification Application: http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mod_portno.pl
> 
> Attached are two revised/drafted template forms.  In these drafted forms,
> I still include the extended texts.  Joe responded in a previous message
> that the text may need some revisions.  So,
> 
> [1] Please review the draft forms and texts (attached), and let me know if
> you have any questions and changes.
> 
> Further, we have additional questions regarding some registrations in the
> registries:
> 
> [2]
> Gorry, we currently have the following dccp ports listed in the registry:
> 
> discard           9/dccp   Discard SC:DISC [RFC4340]
> 
> avt-profile-1   5004/dccp  RTP media data [RFC 3551][RFC 5762]
> avt-profile-2   5005/dccp  RTP control protocol [RFC 3551][RFC 5762]
> 
> syslog-tls      6514/dccp  syslog over DTLS [RFC6012]
> 
> Can you please supply us with the service codes for those?
> 
> [3]
> Is it possible for DCCP Service codes to be modified?  Or once they are
> assigned they stay there forever?
> 
>  
> [4]
> Should we include a new field for 'port number requested (optional)' in
> the application form?
> This way, we are not fishing through the application form for if they
> requested a particular port number.
> We could also add a check for ³no number preference².
> 
> [5] 
> Currently in the registry we have temporary assignments.  We would like to
> suggest the following action:
> Send the registrant an email to ask if they are still using the port number
> If yes, have them complete the registration form so that it can be
> permanently assigned
> If no, remove the port assignment
> If we are unable to reach them, remove the port assignment (after 3
> attempts)
> 
> Please let us know if you agree to this process.
> 
> [6]
> In one of our previous messages we asked the following and Joe responded:
> 
>>    9. What was ever decided regarding the few duplicate names in the
>>       current ports registry? Are we doing anything with those?
> 
> [Joe] You mean alternates, such as "www" and "http"?
> 
> [Joe] I thought we were declaring one of those the primary, and listing
> the 
> others in some secondary place as deprecated but equivalent.
> 
> I think with http and www they are considered alias, however we still need
> to be instructed on what to do for the registry.
> 
> We also have the following case:
> 
> msp              18/tcp    Message Send Protocol
> msp              18/udp    Message Send Protocol
> #                          Rina Nethaniel <---none--->
> 
> and
> 
> msp        2438/tcp   MSP
> msp        2438/udp   MSP
> #               Evan Caves <evan&acc.com>
> 
> What do we do with this?
> 
> ---
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> 
> Cheers,
> ~pl
> 
> 
> 
>