Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-07

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fri, 22 October 2010 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 A7EBD3A689F for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.39
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 u56QIv1H3+cc for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EEE3A68AB for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-MacBook-Pro.local (ra-gorry.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o9MBCFCf028495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:12:15 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4CC1718E.5060901@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:12:14 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
References: <201010220019.CAA27355@TR-Sys.de> <AD37D1C4-9844-42A7-8900-895FC8CD3BDA@nokia.com> <4CC1580E.90405@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CC1580E.90405@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-07
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: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:10:47 -0000

I don't have anything to add - except that my recollection is that there 
were many discussions and that Alexey's comemnts correctly captured the 
outcome I heard.

Gorry

On 22/10/2010 10:23, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>> FYI, from Alfred:
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>
>>> There are numerous significant and good updates in -07, but also
>>> a lot of details that still need more work.
>>> I'm in the process to collect comments and investigate details,
>>> but mostly busy with own doc's also to be updated before the cutoff.
>>> So sorry, will need several more days.
>>>
>>> BTW: draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify is being updated to
>>> accommodate the changes to tsvwg-iana-ports-07, and it will be
>>> out by the cutoff. Please recall that in Hiroshima it had been
>>> decided that *our* draft performs the updates to RFC 2872 and
>>> refers normatively to tsvwg-iana-ports for the registry, whereas
>>> tsvwg-iana-ports will refer to it normatively for the SRV updates
>>> / clarifications in turn, and both drafts shall be submitted for
>>> synchronized publication.
>>> This agreement has been confirmed to us after IETF 76 once more.
>>> There are changes in -07 that reflect this in part, but in particular
>>> the front matter and Abstract still say tsvwg-iana-ports Updates 2872.
>>>
>> My memory is a bit hazy - did we really agree to this?
>>
>>
> No. I've explained to Alfred the scope of Updates: RFC 2872 in your
> draft. Maybe I should do that again.
>
> So don't do this change.
>
>> Lars
>>
>>
>>> Since we want to make use of consistent ABNF and the adoption of the
>>> "at least one letter" rule for the service name syntax in your I-D
>>> also has invalidated the ABNF we had in the last version of our I-D,
>>> we'd appreciate to see your revised ABNF early enough that we could
>>> adopt it. Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Alfred HÎnes.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
>>> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. |
>>> | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 |
>>> | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de |
>>> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>
>