Subject: [port-srv-reg] -02 draft candidate

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:55:48 +0300

Hi,

attached (and in svn) is a pretty major update that is my attempt to  
streamline the draft and roll in all the things we agreed on since -01  
was published.

Please review and comment. Source, text and diff attached.

Lars

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:29:23 -0700

Hi, Lars,

Good update. Some additional comments below.

Joe

- ---

- - the statement about UDP-Lite should indicate explicitly that it uses
the same assignments as UDP

- - the port revocation, renaming, reuse, and transfer sections should be
renamed to be "port and service...", as they apply to service names
without ports too (renaming would involve changing the long name or
other aspects of the registration, so it still makes sense here)

- - regarding the description of new valid names

My lunch notes have us allowing hyphens, not underscores.
That should exclude initial and terminal underscores

- - IANA considerations should include adding aliases, and describe why
this is needed and exactly which entries it impacts

- - regarding sec 5.1
do we want more detail here, or should the general principles of
conservation be moved off to the guidance-for-app-designers doc?
if so, do we really need to say much here, or is it OK to leave that as-is?

- --

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:01:35 -0700

PS - some other notes from my accumulated list of pending changes:

- ----

- - no temporary service name or number assignments
i.e., all assignments are considered permanent, with the same requirements

- - in the description of the 15-char/hyphen etc for names

a reminder that names are case-insensitive

case can be used, but all cases are considered equivalent

- - in sec 5.1, support for versioning (I think that's noted) and support
for security (e.g., that is always on or can be negotiated) is assumed
for all new allocations too

- - the reason for no "all nums" names, notably to avoid confusion between
a port number and a service name

- ---

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:02:23 +0300

Hi,

FYI, I'm applying all the comments I don't have questions on.

Questions:

> other aspects of the registration, so it still makes sense here)

Do we actually want people/IANA to be able to revoke, de-register and  
transfer service name assignments? It makes things more complicated,  
and there is no danger of exhaustion of the service name space.

> if so, do we really need to say much here, or is it OK to leave that  

Don't care much either way. You'll note that I commented out the  
references to the app-designer doc, because we can't really say what  
it will and will not contain before it exists.

If we can add the content to 5.1, that'd work for me (unless it's  
really long).

> i.e., all assignments are considered permanent, with the same  

Is this really true, given that we're now describing procedures for de- 
registration, re-use and transfer?

Lars

PS: Here's a new diff against the previous version I sent (i.e., *not*  
-01):

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:39:36 -0700

Hi, Lars,

Lars Eggert wrote:
...
> transfer service name assignments? It makes things more complicated, and
> there is no danger of exhaustion of the service name space.

We need to be able to transfer points of contact at the least. I don't
see a big reason to ask people to do this or other changes, but I don't
see a reason to exclude it from the process either.

> references to the app-designer doc, because we can't really say what it
> will and will not contain before it exists.
> 
> If we can add the content to 5.1, that'd work for me (unless it's really
> long).

It's a bit out of scope. I would prefer if the guidance to app designers
were in a doc that reads that way; here, it reads like IANA policy,
which we don't need to put in stone.

> Is this really true, given that we're now describing procedures for
> de-registration, re-use and transfer?

We currently hold deregistered ports, and don't intend to reassign them
until we run out of never-registered ones. Temp assignments speed that up.

It would be useful to find ways to include applicants in the process
earlier in their designs, and to reduce the amount of squatting. The
problem with temp assignments is that it's easy for a recipient to squat
on it and then ignore revocation.

I.e., we can revoke assignments, but it has no effect. The only one who
can enforce releasing a port is the owner. So temp assignments don't
have any effect.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:47:26 -0700

Separate point:

The spec for names still isn't what we talked about. It allows initial
and terminal hyphens in the name.

Here's corrected text, including this point and clarification that
they're ASCII and what a hyphen is:

- -----

Service Name: A desired unique service name for the service	
associated with the registration request, for use in various	
service selection and discovery mechanisms, MUST be provided.		
Valid service names MUST only contain these

>> ASCII

characters: letters	
from A to Z, digits from 0 to 9, and hyphens

>> ("-", ASCII 0x2D or decimal 45)

. They MUST be at	
MOST fifteen characters long,

>> MUST NOT begin or end with a hyphen,

and MUST NOT consist of only digits		
in order to be distinguishable from port numbers. In order to be	
unique, they MUST NOT be identical to any currently registered	
service names in the IANA registry [REGISTRY]. Service names are	
case-insensitive; they may be provided and entered into the	
registry with mixed case (e.g., for clarity), but for the purposes	
of comparison, the case is ignored.	
		
- ----

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:48:25 +0300

Hi,

> see a reason to exclude it from the process either.

OK, I've added corresponding procedures for service names.

> can enforce releasing a port is the owner. So temp assignments don't

I don't quite now how & where to express this in the document. Could  
you propose a paragraph of text?

> they're ASCII and what a hyphen is:

Added!

Lars

PS: Here's a new diff against the first -02 candidate version I sent  
(i.e., *not*
-01):

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:41:50 +0300

Hi,

I'll submit this version for now - we can always make more changes for  
-03, but I believe it's important to update the public version of the  
doc.

Lars

On 2009-8-7, at 12:48, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:

> <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports.txt><draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports.txt- 
> from-.diff.html><draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana- 
> ports.xml><smime.p7s><ATT00001.txt>