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

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" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> wrote:

> +1
> 
> dbh 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: port-srv-reg-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:port-srv-reg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:31 AM
>> To: Joe Touch
>> Cc: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
>> 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
>>>> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
>>> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg