Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Wed, 24 August 2011 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F028921F8B11 for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hdMRm6Zyb+PW for <port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24BFC21F88B7 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QDju1h0071swQuc54DuchD; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:54:36 +0000
Received: from davidPC ([67.189.235.106]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QDub1h0082JQnJT3bDubEz; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:54:36 +0000
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: 'Bobby Krupczak' <rdk@krupczak.org>, 'Lars Eggert' <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <6BA107CB-7E6F-4720-ABDF-7B0D0733D607@apple.com><4E53BF1F.5040708@krupczak.org><1E9B995A-044E-467D-858B-F41FB22290D2@nokia.com> <4E54EC37.5060109@krupczak.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E54EC37.5060109@krupczak.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:54:24 -0400
Message-ID: <BE7206B610B549409CE0A327BC1E3D78@davidPC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609
Thread-index: AcxiWAlT3J/r3W7GQoyJom3IZo/WWQACkABw
Cc: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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, 24 Aug 2011 13:53:28 -0000

Hi Bobby,

I am one of the current transport area directors, and we do believe
that the IANA registries do take precedence. 

But, as Lars says, everybody is trying to do the right thing.
We certainly have no desire to deliberately hurt people's products,
especially when they are willing to voluntarily migrate toward IANA
official registries.

But conflicts do exist, and we try to resolve them amicably.
Taking a confrontational your-registration-is-unofficial approach
would probably be counter-productive.
Stuart has taken the initiative to contact all those who have a
potential conflict, both the Apple-registrants and the IANA
registrants, to try to resolve the conflicts in a friendly and
voluntary manner.
He advised those of us involved in this project, and we approved his
approach.
Maybe I should have let Stuart contact the Apple registrants, and I
should have been the one who sent the messages to IANA-registrants, so
those emails came off as less Apple-centric.
Your feedback has been very helpful, and I'll watch for this in any
future conflict-resolution efforts.

I think it is terrific that you are willing to change the service name
to work around this conflict.
That will be tremendously helpful.
I love this job because I meet so many people willing to do the right
thing. It's just wonderful!

Thanks,
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: port-srv-reg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:port-srv-reg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Krupczak
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 8:19 AM
> To: Lars Eggert
> Cc: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] "xmp" service type and the 
> unified IANA Service Name and Port Number Registry
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > I was IETF transport area director when this effort to 
> merge the two registries got started. From the IETF 
> perspective, we were happy to see Apple wanting to merge 
> their private and our "official" registry, precisely because 
> this will in the future avoid name clashes. We can argue 
> whether Apple should have done this sooner, but they are 
> trying to do the right thing now (and have been for a few 
> years, this effort took some time to progress in the IETF.)
> 
> I think its a good thing too.  However, going forward, you guys (the

> IETF) really should pinch companies that try to do ad hoc registries

> then legitimize them by then bringing them to the IETF.  In 
> the future, 
> perhaps the IETF make a policy that IETF registries take 
> precedence over 
> ad hoc registries.  Otherwise, the IETF sets themselves up 
> for more of 
> this kind of thing.  I cannot stress this enough.
> 
> > It's not Apple. Stuart send out his email as one of the 
> authors of the IETF RFC-to-be, because he had the contact 
> information of the folks who registered service names with 
> Apple, and he also contacted the respective IANA registrants. 
> (The port-srv-reg@ietf.org list on the CC has on it the 
> respective IETF area directors, authors, WG chairs and IANA 
> representatives.)
> 
> I dont think he realizes how apple-centric his email and persona is.

> Its difficult to separate the person/project from the company 
> behind it 
> and in this case bonjour is so tightly bound to Apple products.
> 
> > I hope that Stuarts emails haven't left you upset. For each 
> name conflict, he is trying to determine whether the 
> Apple-assigned name and the IANA assigned name are still in 
> active use. In several cases, at least one of them wasn't, 
> which means that that particular clash was easy to resolve. 
> In your case, both assignees use the service name, which 
> complicates the situation.
> 
> No biggie at all, I've got very thick skin and am a big boy.
> 
> See my previous email about coming up with another, more cute 
> service/protocol name.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bobby
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>