Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 17 September 2010 07:50 UTC
Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
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 A932D3A6AAF for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 d9rmni5eCmfv for
<port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net
[193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5067F3A6A4E for
<port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7cbeae00000772f-41-4c931de0abf3
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125])
by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id
62.A7.30511.0ED139C4; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:50:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by
esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:50:31 +0200
Received: from [147.214.183.53] ([147.214.183.53]) by
esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:50:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4C931DC6.1000006@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:50:30 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; sv-SE;
rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
References: <C8A6942D.282AF%michelle.cotton@icann.org> <E308508D-387D-4550-8960-1F74068B77EB@apple.com>
<4C87B342.3040508@isi.edu> <4C91DF48.5010009@ericsson.com>
<4C924978.4010602@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4C924978.4010602@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2010 07:50:31.0064 (UTC)
FILETIME=[0071C180:01CB563D]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion
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, 17 Sep 2010 07:50:33 -0000
Joe Touch skrev 2010-09-16 18:44: > > > On 9/16/2010 2:11 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> 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. > > Any time more than one string maps to the same port number it's a kind > of an 'alias'. The only way for the client to know the difference is via > in-band information. > > I.e., we would allow aliases for: > - different services > - that can be resolved in-band > > Unless BOTH of those apply, we would not allow aliases except: > > a) legacy (www, http) > b) to support changeover to the new namespace > I think we are in agreement. Are the text clear enough on this in your view. I think we can have it improved further to make the above clear. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Mark Mcfadden
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussion Stuart Cheshire
- [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Four final points for discussi… Michelle Cotton