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

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I recommend against having the "Known Unauthorized Uses" field.
I think this would encourage continued use of the unassigned srv/port.

Syslog WG wrote a document explaining why syslog is not interoprable -
it documented how everybody does it differently - and vendors claim
compliance to that RFC.
Somebody will claim "compliance" to the IANA registry that lists their
unauthorized usage.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 7:23 AM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] ACTION ITEMS - final updates - ports doc
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2010-5-19, at 4:01, Joe Touch wrote:
> >>> The current list of registration information is listed in 
> Section 8.1:
> >>> 
> >>>     Registration Administrative Contact (REQUIRED)
> >>>     Registration Technical Contact (REQUIRED)
> >>>     Service Name (REQUIRED)
> >>>     Port Number (OPTIONAL)
> >>>     Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED if port number requested)
> > 
> > I think we agreed to make this "(REQUIRED)" in all cases.
> 
> a port number isn't required for when only a service name is 
> requested, no?
> 
> >>>     Service Code (only REQUIRED for DCCP)
> >>>     Description (REQUIRED)
> >>>     Reference (REQUIRED)
> > 
> > It might be useful to move the service name and transport 
> protocol to
> > the top of the list, and indicate that the pair are the "key",
i.e.,
> > they define the service.
> > 
> > I would suggest adding the following two OPTIONAL fields to the
set
> > above, which are NOT provided by the applicant:
> > 
> > 	Known Unauthorized Uses
> > 	Assignment comments (de-registration, owner/name change, etc.)
> 
> Can you provide text for those two, so we understand a little 
> better what they'd be about?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars
>