Subject: Re: (ngtrans) isatap-03

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:01:32 -0800 (PST)

Alain,

> RFC952 is DOD INTERNET HOST TABLE SPECIFICATION,
> which status is "unknown'. I have noticed the reference to it in
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names
> but I do not understand how it applies.
> Could you please educate me?

I do not have any further information on RFC 952, and cannot say how it
applies in our case. However, I just spoke with Michelle Cotton (the
point-of-contact at ICANN for the IANA assigned numbers registries)
and received some guidance from her regarding our particular requirement.

According to Michelle, the "Protocol and Service Names" registry seems
like the best fit for reserving a protocol/service name that does not
also require a number assignment (e.g. such as for an IP protocol or
TCP/UDP port number registration). Michelle acknowledged that the
registry is quite old, however, and she claimed that the Operations
and Management Area Directors and/or Area Advisor would be the right
people to make the final dermination and instruct IANA as to where
the name "ISATAP" should be reserved.

In any event, I believe Michelle's guidance is the most accurate
piece of information we have to go on. If one of the area directors
could comment on what we are proposing, it would be most helpful.
(Again, we are proposing to reserve the name "ISATAP" for use
in name service lookups to get information about a site's ISATAP
protocol/service deployment.)

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Tim Gleeson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:53:13 +0900

Alain,

It looks like there were some attempts to make use of the IANA
"service-names" registry in RFC2078 and RFC2609. However, there don't
seem to be any registrations from these efforts. So maybe it's not
as "living" as we thought.

Do we need to register the name "ISATAP", and if so, where should
this be done?

We could remove the "registration" text from the draft, and just
document the usage of the name "ISATAP". This would seem to be in line
with RFC2219 "Use of DNS aliases for network services", which is a
BCP. (However, I couldn't find any other references to RFC2219.)

We'd appreciate some guidance here.

Tim