Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [port-srv-reg] New Version Notification for draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:42:59 +0100

Hi,

On 2010-6-30, at 19:01, [email-masked] wrote:
> Please do not neglect the criticism spelled out repeatedly for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports but rejected by your team.  This
> draft tries to accommodate the restrictions imposed by that memo.
> Yet, to be useful for aligning previous RFCs now deemed non-
> conformant with these rules and recent/ongoing work specifically
> calling for multi-label hierarchical Service Prefixes, this
> draft needs to show a uniform path that can be recommended
> to the authors / WGs where these RFCs are originating from.
> 
> Thus, as a replacement mechanism for specifications using
> Service Prefixes with non-transport protocol Protocol Labels
> and/or more than two labels, the non-normative extension
> mechanism proposed is an essential part of this memo.
> 
> Unless the restrictions imposed by draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports
> on the lenght of Service Names and the one-servie-name-per-
> application rule are being relaxed substantially, this extension
> mechanism will remain in this document.

OK, I'm confused. We had a lunch meeting in Anaheim where Olafur was present, and we went down the list of planned changes to iana-ports to explicitly make sure the two documents are aligned.

If they now are not aligned, there are basically two possibilities: Either we we messed things up when updating iana-ports, but I at least don't know where we did. Or draft-gudmundsson changed or is planned to change in ways that are different than what we agreed on.

Can we pencil in a time for a Webex call in order to make progress here?

Lars

PS: Let's please try to take the heat out of this discussion. It's unhelpful.