Re: [port-srv-reg] ACTION ITEMS - final updates - ports doc

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Wed, 19 May 2010 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
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 D014F3A6B59 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 May 2010 04:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.256
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.343, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 RlnzkL9v-Fbf for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 May 2010 04:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9737F3A6B65 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2010 04:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o4JBNMHv014957; Wed, 19 May 2010 14:23:41 +0300
Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 19 May 2010 14:23:10 +0300
Received: from mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.1.48]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 19 May 2010 14:23:09 +0300
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o4JBN8X2024370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 19 May 2010 14:23:08 +0300
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96 at fit.nokia.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-4--391766973; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BF33873.8010309@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:22:56 +0300
Message-Id: <4D0497EE-FD49-445E-942D-1388C66A2701@nokia.com>
References: <201002190143.CAA21850@TR-Sys.de> <4B7F0FF4.5050904@isi.edu> <4B98AE6D.4040704@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4B9AB98F.5080802@isi.edu> <4B9B6F07.7090105@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4B9B9F8C.6080900@isi.edu> <4BABC04D.206@isi.edu> <4BBBB3C8.9060402@isi.edu> <4BE1B8C6.6010706@isi.edu> <7ECE5396-364E-4365-8E1B-F782E25727B0@nokia.com> <4BF33873.8010309@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2010 11:23:09.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[A940C9C0:01CAF745]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] ACTION ITEMS - final updates - ports doc
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, 19 May 2010 11:28:16 -0000

Hi,

On 2010-5-19, at 4:01, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> The current list of registration information is listed in Section 8.1:
>>> 
>>>     Registration Administrative Contact (REQUIRED)
>>>     Registration Technical Contact (REQUIRED)
>>>     Service Name (REQUIRED)
>>>     Port Number (OPTIONAL)
>>>     Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED if port number requested)
> 
> I think we agreed to make this "(REQUIRED)" in all cases.

a port number isn't required for when only a service name is requested, no?

>>>     Service Code (only REQUIRED for DCCP)
>>>     Description (REQUIRED)
>>>     Reference (REQUIRED)
> 
> It might be useful to move the service name and transport protocol to
> the top of the list, and indicate that the pair are the "key", i.e.,
> they define the service.
> 
> I would suggest adding the following two OPTIONAL fields to the set
> above, which are NOT provided by the applicant:
> 
> 	Known Unauthorized Uses
> 	Assignment comments (de-registration, owner/name change, etc.)

Can you provide text for those two, so we understand a little better what they'd be about?

Thanks,
Lars