Re: [port-srv-reg] Survey of current service (port) names

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 03 June 2009 15:26 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 1D6223A6847 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 md1hrtjhjrFV for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8ED3A6F86 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-86-44.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.86.44]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n53FOm6E014762; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A2695C0.4020407@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:24:48 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <E4210C71-440F-453D-916E-BE39EE3F995E@apple.com> <4A0DA870.1030100@isi.edu> <4A1A9BDC.9000608@ericsson.com> <F118FEC4-8FCD-484D-B883-92C30F5366B2@apple.com> <200905292107.n4TL708C018705@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <1E0EF9D8-2BE4-45A0-8E97-AEE36E165A35@apple.com> <200906011220.n51CKiOd016264@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4A23F5D7.50302@isi.edu> <200906012017.n51KHWYw022003@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4A244549.2080107@isi.edu> <4A253CA9.5030800@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A253CA9.5030800@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, port-srv-reg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Survey of current service (port) names
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:26:15 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am actually getting a bit confused by this whole debate. Are the port
> registries "keyword" used in the getservname? 

There are different registries:

	IANA's TCP/UDP number registry
	Stuart's name-only registry (SRV service types, rfc2782)
	IANA's SCTP registry
	IANA's DCCP registry

Currently, all three have different rules for names:
  IANA legacy - 15 chars, start a-z0-9, interior/end .+*/_-, use cases
  IANA new names -
	as specified on the application - 14 characters (no other rules)
	as reviewed - 14 chars, start a-z0-9, interior -, no case
  DNS SRV service types - 14 chars, start/end a-z0-9, include -, no case
  SCTP names - (no length specified) a-z0-9 .+*/_-, use cases
  DCCP names - (no length specified) a-z0-9 .+*/_-, use cases

> What other usages are
> there real for the "keyword"?

TCPMUX defines their use. My TCP portnames draft did too (expired, but
still bumping around). Neither one is particularly sensitive to the
characters used.

> We are trying to merge three different registries because there usage
> seems to have gotten entangled. Are there other ways we could untangle
> them?

SCTP and DCCP did NOT subsume existing IANA TCP/UDP names, though they
could easily have done so.

SRV names claim to subsume existing IANA ports when created, but many
are not listed. New IANA assignments are required to register with the
SRV service type registry separately.

We could redefine the names to use the IANA legacy rules, which are a
superset of all the rules. The key question at that point is whether
this breaks anything - presumably only DNS SRV use would be an issue,
since everything else either uses primarily the numbers IANA assigns
rather than the names, or uses the name as an opaque string
(getsrvbyname, TCPMUX, TCP portnames).

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkomlcAACgkQE5f5cImnZrt/4ACbBzt6lZk8Lh3XTXm1CqjOtehi
ZrgAoJVbiekvFgiR+OKPj4ruP8F9BYXC
=71R5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----