Re: [port-srv-reg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and related issues

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

responding to Alfred and Joe in one go.

On 2010-1-11, at 17:08, [e-mail] wrote:
> If no specific port number is specified in the request to IANA,
> how can IANA determine which port *range* to use for the assignment ?
> 
> That's the question for which I see no answer in the text of
> Section 8.1 (unless it has been changed since we have been
> provided with a working copy dated Dec. 2).

I checked and the text says:

	If the text "ANY" is specified, IANA will choose
	a suitable number from the Registered Ports range.

So in order to get a Well Known port, the applicant has to specify which one. That's OK, because you need to pass IETF Review anyway, which means you need a draft, and all requests for the Well Known range I've ever seen had already picked their port.


On 2010-1-11, at 17:06, Joe Touch wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2010-1-11, at 14:27, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> Paraphrased from collected wisdom:
>>>  "allocate" or "assign" :
...
>>>  "register" :
>> 
>> I'd like to hear if IANA is of the same opinion. My impression was that assign = register.
> 
> There's a third variant, and it isn't covered above:
> 
> 	requester usually proposes a code point, and IANA
> 	can either approve it or propose a different one.
> 	IANA usually confirms the requester's acceptance
> 	of the code point offered.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand how that is a third option. Either IANA views "registered" and "assigned" as synonyms or they don't :-)

>>> (3)
>>> Furthermore, to make sensible use of Service Names w/o assigned
>>> port number, the Transport Protocol(s) field should not be made
>>> optional (as in the predraft I got), but mandatory; otherwise
>>> the clarified rules for SRV owner naming would lack a fundament.
>> 
>> Why? A service name is a name for a service, and not for a service/transport combination.
> 
> IMO, this basically treats SRV names as old port numbers were treated -
> i.e., ask for a name, get ALL transports. That's how port number
> assignments were done until recently, where now only the needed
> transport is assigned.
> 
> So IMO a service means something only relative to a transport. However,
> it'd be useful to require the transport be specified only if the same
> name would mean different things for different transports. Do we ever
> see that happening?

Right. Or, in other words, if you have a service name, it's yours for all transports, just as ports used to be. (There are so many service names that we can burn combinations that aren't used, and limit interactions with IANA.)

Lars