Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion

[Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]>]

On 3 Sep, 2010, at 12:01, Michelle Cotton wrote:

> I agree with all the changes below.
> Regarding the last point, can the service name aliases for future  
> registrations go in the notes column?
>
> Michelle


I don't think there will be any future aliases.

I don't see any reason to be allowing further creation of aliases  
that add nothing except being a new name for something else that  
already exists.

If someone says they want to register a new service name "wibble"  
which is in fact identical in all respects to "telnet", using the  
same message formats for the same purpose on the same port, then the  
answer is they're not allowed to do that because it's a bad idea.

It's like someone wanting to register IP protocol number 191 to be a  
new transport protocol identical in all respects to TCP, so that  
clients are now free to use *either* IP protocol number 6 *or* IP  
protocol number 191 to mean "TCP", and all servers have to handle  
both because a client may use either at the client's whim. And if one  
alias, why not ten or twenty different aliases for "TCP"? If someone  
wanted to do that we wouldn't allow them because it's a bad idea that  
serves no purpose.

Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]>
* Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
* www.stuartcheshire.org