Re: [port-srv-reg] Aliased service names

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Stuart Cheshire skrev 2010-09-04 09:18:
> On 3 Sep 2010, at 1:21, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 
>> TURN is a backward-compatible extension of STUN. So if a client looks up "stun", a TURN server can offer service to that client. So a TURN server that wanted to support STUN would need to register both service names.
> 
> Right, and that's okay.
> 
> In this case TURN is not simply an alias for STUN. It's an extension.
> 
> A server that offers TURN on a given port also offers STUN on that port, so it should advertise both.
> 
> My point is that there's nothing to be gained by allowing variant names that are merely aliases for the exact same service.
> 
Fully agreeing, however compatible services must be possible to register
and allowed to co-exist on the port. However, that should be allowed
currently. I think we are mostly discussing what descriptions are in the
document. I think we should clarify that we recommend against any alias
like www and http. From my perspective we can even disallow it but no
strong preference for me.

The second usage should both be endorsed and recommended when possible.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------