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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch skrev 2010-09-08 18:01:
> 
> 
> On 9/7/2010 4:14 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The burden falls on the owner of the port. If they want to ask for 
> aliases, e.g., to shift from an old product name to a new one, I can't 
> see why we would care. There is impact, but only on that port anyway. 
> However, I'd restrict it to the owner of the port only.
> 
> A good example of this would be the STUN/TURN stuff we discussed recently.
> 

I think we should strongly recommend against alias for the first case
like http and www. However STUN and TURN are not aliases, they are
compatible services that can co-exist on the same port. Thus I wouldn't
call them aliases at all.

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------