Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Re: Assigning ports - reference updates

[Pearl Liang <[e-mail]>]

This is done.  

Cheers,
~pearl

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:46:02 -0700
To: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
Cc: pearl liang <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: Re: Assigning ports - reference updates

>I agree, FWIW...
>
>On 9/22/2011 12:25 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like option 1 better as the actual rule for assignment are in fact all
>> in RFC 6335, nowhere else. You already need to know what you are using
>> your service name to to know what to ask for.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>> On 2011-09-21 19:05, Pearl Liang wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> As per Joe, Tom petch ([e-mail]) indicated that, since
>>> RFC6335 has been approved, it should replace all references cited in
>>>the
>>> IANA service Name and Port Number registry.  We think that we should
>>> include RFC2782 in addition to RFC6335 for SRV Names since RFC6335 only
>>> updates 2782.  We are checking with you if anyone has any objections to
>>> going forward with using RFC 6335 as the reference.  And if there is
>>>one
>>> please provide your suggested remedy.  Below describes the current text
>>> and proposed changes: (sorry it's a bit lengthy.)
>>>
>>> The current text in the 'Note' section located at
>>> 
>>>http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names
>>>-po
>>> rt-numbers.xml is:
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>> Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>>> documented in [RFC952].
>>>
>>> Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges:
>>>System
>>> Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>>> Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described
>>>in
>>> [RFC6335]. System Ports are assigned by IETF
>>> process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC1340].  User Ports
>>> are assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" process, as per
>>> [RFC5226].  Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>>>
>>> The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>>> described in [RFC6335].
>>> /snip/
>>>
>>> The proposed NEW text:
>>>
>>> Option 1:
>>> Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>>> documented in [RFC6335].
>>>                ^^^^^^^^^
>>> Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges:
>>>System
>>> Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>>> Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described
>>>in
>>> [RFC6335]. System Ports are assigned by IETF
>>> process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC6335].  User Ports
>>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>>> are assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" process, as per
>>> [RFC6335].  Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>>> described in [RFC6335].
>>> /snip/
>>>
>>> Option 2:
>>> Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>>> documented in [RFC2782] and [RFC6335].
>>>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges:
>>>System
>>> Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>>> Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described
>>>in
>>> [RFC6335]. System Ports are assigned by IETF
>>> process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC6335].  User Ports
>>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>>> are assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" process, as per
>>> [RFC6335].  Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>>> described in [RFC6335].
>>> /snip/
>>>
>>> Any other suggestions?  Please let us know how we can make the changes.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>> ~pearl
>>>
>>
>>