Re: [port-srv-reg] we need to make progress

[Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]>]

On 3 Sep, 2010, at 01:15, Lars Eggert wrote:

>>      <t>The service name syntax MAY be used to validate a service  
>> name
>>      string, but MUST NOT be used for any other purpose (e.g.,
>>      delineation). Any system that includes a service name inside a
>>      longer string is itself responsible for delineating the service
>>      name.  Such systems MUST NOT rely on the syntax of a service  
>> name
>>      alone for such delineation. </t>
>>
>> I have no idea what that is talking about. It gives the sense of  
>> referring to something in particular, but doesn't actually say  
>> what. Regardless, I did my PhD in message framing and the syntax  
>> of marking boundaries, and I know of no basis for the claim that  
>> paragraph is making.
>
> (No idea either.)


Does this convey our intended meaning better?

       <t>Service names are purely opaque identifiers, and no  
semantics are
       implied by any superficial structure that a given service name  
may appear
       to have. For example, a company called "Example" may choose to  
register
       service names "Example-Foo" and "Example-Bar" for its "Foo"  
and "Bar"
       products, but the "Example" company can't claim to "own" all  
service names
       beginning with "Example-", they can't prevent someone else  
registering
       "Example-Baz" for a different service, and they can't prevent  
other
       developers from using the "Example-Foo" and "Example-Bar"  
service types in
       order to interoperate with the "Foo" and "Bar" products.  
Service names are
       constructed using human-readable characters for mnemonic  
convenience for
       human developers; software should treat them as purely opaque  
identifiers
       and not attempt to parse them for any additional embedded  
meaning.</t>

Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]>
* Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
* www.stuartcheshire.org