Re: [radext] #189 (dynamic-discovery): SRV protocol registry

"radext issue tracker" <> Mon, 27 October 2014 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966681A8F49 for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rIe-RfA43TF3 for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FBFC1A6F34 for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:54885 by with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <>) id 1XiiKX-0004IH-DZ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:19:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "radext issue tracker" <>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
X-Trac-Project: radext
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:19:21 -0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 189
In-Reply-To: <>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: Re: [radext] #189 (dynamic-discovery): SRV protocol registry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:19:31 -0000

#189: SRV protocol registry

Comment (by

 This is about the "Proto" field for the SRV RR. I see that the original
 RFC2782 already uses _tcp and _udp in its examples and considers them
 useful, but this has never made its way into an actual registry entry at
 IANA as far as I can see.
 Other (new) protocol tags have been defined properly, e.g.
 In the absence of an existing IANA registry specifically for _tcp and
 _udp, I was trying to create one.

 If we can consider those two existing by legacy or via some implicit rule
 (which I still don't "get" after reading your comment), I can also drop
 the paragraph.

 For the sake of releasing -12 before the cutoff, I'll comment out the
 section and we can think plentiful about whether it should rather be in at
 a later point.

 Reporter:  |       Owner:
     Type:  task                    |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:
Component:  dynamic-discovery       |     Version:
 Severity:  -                       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                          |

Ticket URL: <>
radext <>