Re: [port-srv-reg] Fwd: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-07

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:

> On 22/10/2010 5:23 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>> Lars Eggert wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, from Alfred:
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> There are numerous significant and good updates in -07, but also
>>>> a lot of details that still need more work.
>>>> I'm in the process to collect comments and investigate details,
>>>> but mostly busy with own doc's also to be updated before the cutoff.
>>>> So sorry, will need several more days.
>>>>
>>>> BTW: draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify is being updated to
>>>> accommodate the changes to tsvwg-iana-ports-07, and it will be
>>>> out by the cutoff. Please recall that in Hiroshima it had been
>>>> decided that *our* draft performs the updates to RFC 2872 and
>>>> refers normatively to tsvwg-iana-ports for the registry, whereas
>>>> tsvwg-iana-ports will refer to it normatively for the SRV updates
>>>> / clarifications in turn, and both drafts shall be submitted for
>>>> synchronized publication.
>>>> This agreement has been confirmed to us after IETF 76 once more.
>>>> There are changes in -07 that reflect this in part, but in particular
>>>> the front matter and Abstract still say tsvwg-iana-ports Updates 2872.
>>>
>>> My memory is a bit hazy - did we really agree to this?
>>
>> No. I've explained to Alfred the scope of Updates: RFC 2872 in your
>> draft. Maybe I should do that again.
>>
>> So don't do this change.
>
> Lars, yes this was the agreement.
>
> Rather than get into an argument as who does what, lets first
> compile a list of changes to 2782 from each document to weed out any 
> redundancies and then figure out where they fit.

Olafur,
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports is updating RFC 2782, because it is 
clarifying which IANA registry is to be used for service names.

Your document will most likely be updating both RFC 2782 and 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports.