Re: [port-srv-reg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and related issues

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2010-1-11, at 14:27, [e-mail] wrote:
> (1)
> Paraphrased from collected wisdom:
> 
>   "allocate" or "assign" :
>         IANA choses the code point, hands it out and
>         publishes it; if the requester proposes a value,
>         it is not binding for IANA and can be changed
>         without further notice/interaction.
> 
>   "register" :
>         The requester usually proposes an (already established) code
>         point, and if feasible, IANA accepts and publishes the value;
>         otherwise, IANA must contact the requester for another
>         proposal and iterate the procedure until acceptable.

I'd like to hear if IANA is of the same opinion. My impression was that assign = register.

> If I understand correctly, under the new regime, Service Names will
> be "registered" and *all* Port Numbers (if any) will be "assigned".
> Is that correct?
> (The draft says the requester may "suggest" a value "for allocation".)

The draft was written under the assumption that assign = register.

> (2)
> It also should be pointed out that in the most recent predraft
> I've seen (December 2, 2009 version), there still is no possibility
> in the proposed registration template to distinguish between
> a request for a Well Known port number without a proposed value and
> a request for a Registered Port without a proposed port number --
> both have to supply "Port Number: ANY".

And that's on purpose: for both regions of the port number space, requesters may (but need not) suggest a number

> (3)
> Furthermore, to make sensible use of Service Names w/o assigned
> port number, the Transport Protocol(s) field should not be made
> optional (as in the predraft I got), but mandatory; otherwise
> the clarified rules for SRV owner naming would lack a fundament.

Why? A service name is a name for a service, and not for a service/transport combination.

Lars

> (The need for having registered {Service Name, Protocol} pairs was
> the main reason for the original Service Prefix registry proposal.)
> Thus, I strongly suggest to strike the phrase,
>   "If assignment of a port number is desired,"
> in the description of the Transport Protocol(s) field and
> strike "(if port number requested)" in the overview in 8.1,
> precding the bullets for the template fields.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
>  Alfred.
> 
> -- 
> 
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
>