Re: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-07

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Superuser skrev 2010-10-22 02:19:
> At Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:52:56 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 
>> So far, no other feedback. We'll submit a version with the fix
>> before the cutoff.
>>
>> Lars
> 
> Lars,
> my apologies for not being able to perform substantial IETF work
> since Maastricht until very recently, but sometimes things happen
> almost all at once ...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Since we want to make use of consistent ABNF and the adoption of the
> "at least one letter" rule for the service name syntax in your I-D
> also has invalidated the ABNF we had in the last version of our I-D,
> we'd appreciate to see your revised ABNF early enough that we could
> adopt it.  Thanks in advance!
> 

Hi Alfred,

To my understanding based on some communication between the authoring
team. I think you are wrong about the agreement about our document not
updating RFC 2782. As I see it our document do need to update RFC 2782
in the form we currently have, i.e. say that this is the registry that
is the service name. I might have forgotten something that was agreed in
Hiroshima, can you please point to where this is documented?

In my memory every time we discussed synchronized publication we have
seen this as impractical. To my understanding the best way forward is
that we publish our draft as soon as possible. Then
draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify can be published at the same time
or somewhat later. Also if your draft do needs to update RFC 2782 also,
that is fine, or even our draft.

We are looking forward to more detailed comments. This as we believe we
are ready for WG last call as soon as the next version becomes available.

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------