IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 08 September 2010 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 EB6B13A68E9 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2lX7gVSIeuaU for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F173A6807 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.212.217.53] (53.sub-75-212-217.myvzw.com [75.212.217.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o88G14B7003445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C87B342.3040508@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:01:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
References: <C8A6942D.282AF%michelle.cotton@icann.org> <E308508D-387D-4550-8960-1F74068B77EB@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <E308508D-387D-4550-8960-1F74068B77EB@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: o88G14B7003445
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
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: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:01:37 -0000

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.

Joe

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email