Re: [port-srv-reg] Comments on SVN revision 68

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch skrev 2010-10-04 18:11:
> 
> 
> On 10/4/2010 7:24 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> ...
>>> ...
>>>> 2. Related to section 5.1, what about the rule that there are no consecutive
>>>> hypens?
>>>> Could someone register a---------5 as a service name/port number?
>>>> Are there any issues with that?
>>>
>>> They can now; under the new rules, they could not. I see no issues with
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Sequential hyphens are confusing. So is the name "oooooooh" - you have
>>> to count the 'o's and get it right.
>>>
>>> I don't see syntax as a place to specify how to avoid such confusion.
>>> That can (and already does) happen via gentle suggestion by IANA reviewers.
>>
>> I agree that we don't need to exclude it in the syntax. A question is if
>> we should include a recommendation against doubl hyphen and other cases
>> of repetitions that aren't readable as regular english?
> 
> I see no need to do so.
> 
> FWIW, I had thought we already agreed to change the rules to prevent 
> sequences of hyphens. Right now, the ABNF is correct in this regard, but 
> the normative rules need another rule:
> 
> - hyphens are not allowed adjacent to other hyphens
> 

Ok, that is now edited in. However, I changed it to match the other
rules from style point of view:

hyphens MUST NOT be adjacent to other hyphens

Checked in as revision 74.


>>>> 12.  The following paragraph describes that we only assign the requested
>>>> protocol and mark others 'Reserved':
>>>>
>>>> "The new allocation procedure conserves resources by allocating a port
>>>> number to an application for only those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP
>>>> and/or DCCP) it actually uses.  The port number will be marked as Reserved -
>>>> instead of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other transport
>>>> protocols."
>>>>
>>>> QUESTION: When reserving the non-used protocols, are we putting additional
>>>> lines for each entry?  This will make it very clear however the registry
>>>> will get much larger.  (and it is already quite large)
>>>
>>> There ought to be an explicit indication of reserved ports; this can be
>>> accomplished several ways:
>>>
>>> 	1) separate lines
>>> 	2) some other organization where one listing also indicates
>>> 	which other protocols are reserved
>>>
>>> This is out of scope for the doc, though - the doc shouldn't focus on
>>> how the info is represented in the registry.
>>
>> Yes, I think even a statement before the list saying that protocols for
>> a given port number that has at least on registration are reserved but
>                                          ^^^ = one
>> not explicitly indicated will do the trick.
> 
> That works for humans, but not for systems using the table source as a 
> database (screen-scraper or otherwise). For the latter, we need an entry 
> for anything that is not "available".
> 

I see your point. I think IANA might need to consider doing the ports
registry web page with a few selectors on what info to display so humans
can reduce it.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------