Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry with port-numbers

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Overnight, I came to a similar conclusion about _tcp vs _udp.

We don't actually want the service tied to a specific transport, but I
like Joe's justification - which protocol will be used to do the
lookup. I think the document might do well to explain the tcp vs udp
issue as the name resolution transport. Does that make sense to
others?

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:27 PM
> To: Michelle Cotton
> Cc: David Harrington; 'Lars Eggert'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry 
> with port-numbers
> 
> The SRV spec requires the DNS entry use _tcp or _udp. I had a 
> discussion 
> with Gorry that sometimes these don't really matter (some use these 
> entries and still use another transport, such as SCTP or DCCP).
> 
> We said in the ports doc that the transport must be listed, and only

> certain transports were accepted:
> 
> ---
>     o  Transport Protocol(s): The transport protocol(s) for which an
>        assignment is requested MUST be provided.  This field 
> is currently
>        limited to one or more of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP.  Requests
>        without any port assignment and only a service name are still
>        required to indicate which protocol the service uses.
> ---
> 
> I would tell the applicant they have to pick a transport, 
> e.g., the one 
> they intend to lookup the service name under (even if they use a 
> proprietary transport later).
> 
>  From IANA's viewpoint, it's just going to end up being a TCP 
> or UDP or 
> somesuch registration.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 4/12/2011 12:57 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> > FYI...we believe these 2 (mentioned below) are the only 2 
> exceptions.
> > How do you want to proceed?
> >
> > --Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/12/11 1:18 AM, "David Harrington"<[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> dbh
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [e-mail]
> >>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:31 AM
> >>> To: Joe Touch
> >>> Cc: [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] FW: Merging Stuart's registry
> >>> with port-numbers
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> if there are more cases like this, or more otherwise special
> >>> cases, we may want to make edits during AUTH48. For example,
> >>> allow "other" as a transport protocol tag in cases like this.
> >>>
> >>> How far along with the merging are you?
> >>>
> >>> Lars
> >>>
> >>> On 2011-4-12, at 6:35, Joe Touch wrote:
> >>>> That's a good question. I had argued that service names
> >>> were independent of the transport protocol, but given the
> >>> current text they aren't, so not clear how to handle it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe "other" or "proprietary" as the transport and leave
> >>> it at that informally in the registry?
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/11/2011 1:19 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> >>>>> All:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are in the process of officially combining the
> >>> ports/service name
> >>>>> registries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stuart's registry
> >>> (http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html) contains
> >>>>> these two entries:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> panoply         Panoply multimedia composite transfer protocol
> >>>>>                  Natarajan Balasundara<rajan at
ipanoramii.com>
> >>>>>                  Primary Transport Protocol: Proprietary
> >>>>>                  Defined TXT keys: None
> >>>>>
> >>>>> parabay-p2p     Parabay P2P protocol
> >>>>>                  Vishnu Varadaraj<vishnuv at parabay.com>
> >>>>>                  Primary Transport Protocol: Proprietary
> >>>>>                  Defined TXT keys: None
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a problem with the "Proprietary" transport
> >>> protocol. The new
> >>>>> port-numbers registry accepts only UDP, TCP, SCTP, or DCCP
> >>> as transport
> >>>>> protocol (according to draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10
> >>> section 8.1.1).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do we deal with this one?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Michelle
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
> >
>