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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Everything except the document part. It's out the door at this point. Afaict this can be in the next doc or just a clarification to applicants by IANA. 

Joe

On Apr 12, 2011, at 11:22 PM, "David Harrington" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>>