Re: [port-srv-reg] Questions about the Port Template forms for the ports document actions

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 5/11/2011 6:07 AM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> I'm actually not sure that is how we meant it and the titles/headings should
> be changed.
>
> Perhaps that is a question to the group.
>
> Should there be a separate service name template?
> Or do we keep them together in one?

I'd keep them together.

Joe

>
> --Michelle
>
>
> On 5/11/11 2:08 AM, "Magnus Westerlund"<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-05-04 18:24, Pearl Liang wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Since the
>> I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports has been approved, we are also in the
>> process
>> modifying the template forms.  The existing template forms are
>> available
>> at:
>>
>> Port Number Application:
>> http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl
>> Modification Application:
>> http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mod_portno.pl
>>
>> Attached are two
>> revised/drafted template forms.  In these drafted forms,
>> I still include the
>> extended texts.  Joe responded in a previous message
>> that the text may need
>> some revisions.  So,
>>
>> [1] Please review the draft forms and texts
>> (attached), and let me know if
>> you have any questions and changes.
>
> User
>> Port template:
>
> 1. So there will be a separate "service name" request page?
>
>> I do think it is a good idea, but just to ensure that this isn't
> missing
>> functionality.
>
> 2. "(Note: All information submitted to IANA will not be made
>> public
> without proper consent of the applicant.)"
>
> Is this correct, to me this
>> appears to be binding on the expert review
> team also. I think you need to
>> clarify in which regard you keep
> confidentiality.
>
> 3. I think the template
>> should make clear the difference between the
> contact and the assignee with
>> some wording?
>
> 4. "(Please check one(s) that is currently required.)"
>
> Is
>> "required" really the right word here? I know the intention is to
> only have
>> the requestor check the ones that they intended to use in the
> short term. Can
>> some better formulation be found?
>
> Port Modification template:
>
> 5. Regarding
>> comment 4 above, this template has a different formulation
> for the
>> protocols.
>
> 6. I do become uncertain if it is a modification request or new
>> request
> to add an additional protocol to a service. I think you need to make
>> it
> clear which to use.
>
> 7. If I want to change some of the SCTP specific info
>> from the
> registration template, how do I do that?
>
>
>>
>> Further, we have
>> additional questions regarding some registrations in the
>> registries:
>>
>>
>> [2]
>> Gorry, we currently have the following dccp ports listed in the
>> registry:
>>
>> discard           9/dccp   Discard SC:DISC [RFC4340]
>
> The SC is
>> present it is "DISC" but if you want it as a 32-bit integer it is
>
> DISC = 44
>> 49 53 43 which interpreted as an 32 bit integer are:
>
> SC=741422379
>> SC=x2c31352B
>
>>
>> avt-profile-1   5004/dccp  RTP media data [RFC 3551][RFC
>> 5762]
>> avt-profile-2   5005/dccp  RTP control protocol [RFC 3551][RFC 5762]
>>
>>
>
> The following service codes are registered with RTP usage:
>     o  SC:RTPA
>> (equivalently SC=1381257281 or SC=x52545041): an RTP
>        session conveying
>> audio data (and OPTIONAL multiplexed RTCP)
>
>     o  SC:RTPV (equivalently
>> SC=1381257302 or SC=x52545056): an RTP
>        session conveying video data (and
>> OPTIONAL multiplexed RTCP)
>
>     o  SC:RTPT (equivalently SC=1381257300 or
>> SC=x52545054): an RTP
>        session conveying text media (and OPTIONAL
>> multiplexed RTCP)
>
>     o  SC:RTPO (equivalently SC=1381257295 or SC=x5254504f):
>> an RTP
>        session conveying any other type of media (and OPTIONAL
>
>> multiplexed RTCP)
>
>     o  SC:RTCP (equivalently SC=1381253968 or SC=x52544350):
>> an RTCP
>        connection, separate from the corresponding RTP
>
>
>
>
>> syslog-tls
>> 6514/dccp  syslog over DTLS [RFC6012]
>
> 1398361159    SYLG    Syslog Protocol
>> [RFC6012]
>
>
>
>>
>> Can you please supply us with the service codes for
>> those?
>
> So I am not gorry, but they where present in the documents
>> referenced.
>
>
>>
>> [3]
>> Is it possible for DCCP Service codes to be modified?
>> Or once they are
>> assigned they stay there forever?
>
> I don't think they can
>> be modified in the context of a service-name and
> server port.
>
> One thing that
>> can happen is that one can request to add additional
> service codes to a
>> service name and a port combination.
>
> If that is a modification of an existing
>> service-name + combination or a
> new request do needs to be discussed. But
>> requiring it to be a new
> request might be a good idea.
>
>>
>>
>> [4]
>> Should
>> we include a new field for 'port number requested (optional)' in
>> the
>> application form?
>> This way, we are not fishing through the application form
>> for if they
>> requested a particular port number.
>> We could also add a check
>> for ³no number preference².
>
> Yes, I think that is a good idea.
>
>
>>
>> [5]
>>
>> Currently in the registry we have temporary assignments.  We would like to
>>
>> suggest the following action:
>> Send the registrant an email to ask if they
>> are still using the port number
>> If yes, have them complete the registration
>> form so that it can be
>> permanently assigned
>> If no, remove the port
>> assignment
>> If we are unable to reach them, remove the port assignment (after
>> 3
>> attempts)
>>
>> Please let us know if you agree to this process.
>>
>
> I
>> think everything but the removal is okay. The removal is likely ok but
> maybe
>> should be put in the port numbers comment. The alternative is to
> reserve the
>> port number for now with a note that it was temporarily
> assigned.
>
>> [6]
>> In
>> one of our previous messages we asked the following and Joe responded:
>>
>>>
>> 9. What was ever decided regarding the few duplicate names in the
>>>
>> current ports registry? Are we doing anything with those?
>>
>> [Joe] You mean
>> alternates, such as "www" and "http"?
>>
>> [Joe] I thought we were declaring
>> one of those the primary, and listing
>> the
>> others in some secondary place
>> as deprecated but equivalent.
>>
>> I think with http and www they are
>> considered alias, however we still need
>> to be instructed on what to do for
>> the registry.
>>
>> We also have the following case:
>>
>> msp
>> 18/tcp    Message Send Protocol
>> msp              18/udp    Message Send
>> Protocol
>> #                          Rina Nethaniel<---none--->
>>
>> and
>>
>>
>> msp        2438/tcp   MSP
>> msp        2438/udp   MSP
>> #
>> Evan Caves<evan&acc.com>
>>
>> What do we do with this?
>
> I don't think there
>> exist any good way of resolving this. I think
> assigning them each an
>> alternative unique name and leave in a comment
> about the original not being
>> unique and should not be used in lookup
> usages.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>> Westerlund
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research
>> EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6
>> | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:
>> [e-mail]
> -----------------------------------------------
>> -----------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Port-
>> srv-reg mailing
>> list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg