IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [port-srv-reg] Inconsistent terminology regarding "Administrative Contact" and "Technical Contact"

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 14 September 2010 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8EB3A6B3A for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.616
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Gub2hHtP53g for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871663A6958 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.176.34] (c1-vpn4.isi.edu [128.9.176.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8ELb7JZ015875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C8FEB03.3040008@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:37:07 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
References: <11ED4B07-AABE-4F4F-BED0-41BBDBF2ABE8@apple.com> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34108316E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4C88FE1D.1050609@isi.edu> <4C6EAD67-2F1C-49F3-A789-07E69DFB466B@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C6EAD67-2F1C-49F3-A789-07E69DFB466B@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Inconsistent terminology regarding "Administrative Contact" and "Technical Contact"
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of updates to service name and transport protocol port registry <port-srv-reg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/port-srv-reg>
List-Post: <mailto:port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:40:44 -0000

On 9/14/2010 2:28 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 2010, at 08:32, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I'm a bit confused by the current terms. I think we all
>> understand the goal - a tech contact and an owner.
>
> Except it's not an "owner", because we have, in previous versions of the
> draft, taken pains to stress that no one except IANA "owns" a port or
> service name:

Right. It's the "owner of the registration", i.e., the owner of the 
record that IANA lets them use... agreed that 'owner' is equally confusing.

Joe

> It is important to note that ownership of registered port numbers and
> service names remains with IANA.
>
> Can we get some agreement on the terminology and concepts here?
>
> Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
> * www.stuartcheshire.org

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email