Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry

[Bobby Krupczak <[e-mail]>]

Hi David!

> I am one of the current transport area directors, and we do believe
> that the IANA registries do take precedence. 

That is not apparently what is taking place though.

> Taking a confrontational your-registration-is-unofficial approach
> would probably be counter-productive.

Taking Stuart's approach where he said initially that the ideal
approach would be for me to give up my service name is also
counter-productive. 

I mean, really.  Think about the precedent you guys are setting for
the IETF and IANA and ad hoc registries.

> I think it is terrific that you are willing to change the service name
> to work around this conflict.
> That will be tremendously helpful.

I think the IETF and WG really need to think harder about the
precedence being set here.  In the future, when some company
(e.g. Apple) wants to legitimize an ad hoc registry, rules need to be
set about this and I think IANA registries should take priority.  If I
had not agreed to change my protocol/service name, we would have ended
up in a situation where we had name conflicts.  I just not seeing that
you guys see the bad precedence set here.  

You say IANA registries take precedence but if that were true, I would
not have been asked to give up my service name and there would have
been no potential stalemate.

(I think if you grep through your past email, you'll find that we've
crossed paths in the SNMP world.)

Bobby