Re: [port-srv-reg] Making progress

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 9/7/2010 2:07 PM, Mark Mcfadden wrote:
> It wasn't my suggestion, but I believe that it is useful to avoid potential confusion in names.
>
> this-svc    and
> this--svc
>
> would be easy to confuse.  I don't think that it (consecutive hyphens) is a necessary syntax feature.

The issue only arises when there are multiple names with hyphens in the 
same place, and that can be avoided by IANA during registration.

My concern is placing too many syntactical restrictions on the names. 
The only current restrictions are:

	- not all numeric
	(so a name is recognizable as such, rather than possibly being
	the port number it refers to)

	- no leading or trailing hyphen
	(not sure why this is required; it doesn't seem to mess with
	either the DNS or anything else, AFAICT)

I would favor less restrictions, rather than more.

Joe


 > ________________________________________
> From: Joe Touch [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:01 PM
> To: Mark Mcfadden
> Cc: Stuart Cheshire; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Making progress
>
> Only one point...
>
> - I don't see why we care about consecutive hyphens; prohibiting that
> should be dropped
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 9/7/2010 1:51 PM, Mark Mcfadden wrote:
>> The most recent version in the repository has the changes suggested by Michelle and Pearl.  The attachment has the before and after language.  Of course, a simple diff is also going to provide you with a view of the small changes that were made.  They were:
>>
>> - clarity in the introduction about the authority for registering port numbers and service names;
>> - the need to prohibit multiple consecutive hyphens in the service name; and,
>> - consistency of the contact and registration language in Section 8.
>>
>> mark
>>
>> Mark McFadden
>> [e-mail]
>> IANA Resource Specialist