Subject: [port-srv-reg] Making progress

From: Mark Mcfadden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:51:10 -0700

The most recent version in the repository has the changes suggested by Michelle and Pearl.  The attachment has the before and after language.  Of course, a simple diff is also going to provide you with a view of the small changes that were made.  They were:

- clarity in the introduction about the authority for registering port numbers and service names;
- the need to prohibit multiple consecutive hyphens in the service name; and,
- consistency of the contact and registration language in Section 8.

mark

Mark McFadden
[email-masked]
IANA Resource Specialist

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:01:32 -0700

Only one point...

- I don't see why we care about consecutive hyphens; prohibiting that 
should be dropped

Joe

---

From: Mark Mcfadden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:07:52 -0700

It wasn't my suggestion, but I believe that it is useful to avoid potential confusion in names.

this-svc    and
this--svc

would be easy to confuse.  I don't think that it (consecutive hyphens) is a necessary syntax feature.

mark

Mark McFadden
[email-masked]
IANA Resource Specialist
________________________________________
From: Joe Touch [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:01 PM
To: Mark Mcfadden
Cc: Stuart Cheshire; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Making progress

Only one point...

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:09:34 -0700

> would be easy to confuse.  I don't think that it (consecutive hyphens) is a necessary syntax feature.

The issue only arises when there are multiple names with hyphens in the 
same place, and that can be avoided by IANA during registration.

My concern is placing too many syntactical restrictions on the names. 
The only current restrictions are:

	- not all numeric
	(so a name is recognizable as such, rather than possibly being
	the port number it refers to)

	- no leading or trailing hyphen
	(not sure why this is required; it doesn't seem to mess with
	either the DNS or anything else, AFAICT)

I would favor less restrictions, rather than more.

Joe

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:15:51 -0700

On 7 Sep, 2010, at 13:51, Mark Mcfadden wrote:

> The most recent version in the repository has the changes suggested  
> by Michelle and Pearl.  The attachment has the before and after  
> language.  Of course, a simple diff is also going to provide you  
> with a view of the small changes that were made.  They were:

I see you added.

       <t>Note that the historic "port name" is now the "service  
name" and
       follows the service name syntax defined in this section. </t>

To be strictly accurate, this should say:

       <t>In approximately 98% of cases, the new "service name" is  
exactly
       the same as the old historic "short name" from the IANA web forms
       <xref target="SYSFORM"/> <xref target="USRFORM"/>. In  
approximately 2% of
       cases, the new "service name" is derived from the old historic  
"short
       name" as described below in <xref target="consistency"/>.</t>

> hyphens) is a necessary syntax feature.

We can't stop people creating deliberately confusing names. Limiting  
length and character set is beneficial for implementation reasons.  
Prohibiting services called "23" or "6000-6063" is beneficial if it  
avoids developer confusion with ports or port ranges. Apart from  
addressing those specific concerns, I don't think we need to be  
adding additional restrictions.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
* Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
* www.stuartcheshire.org