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

From: Superuser <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:19:59 +0200 (MESZ)

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!

Kind regards,
  Alfred HÎnes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:58:35 -0500

At 07:19 PM 10/21/2010, Superuser wrote:
>decided that *our* draft performs the updates to RFC 2872

err, Alfred - surely you don't mean RFC 2872, 
which created the RSVP Object for an Application 
Identifier within reservations here...

I'm thinking not

James

>and

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:02:01 +0200 (MESZ)

> At 07:19 PM 10/21/2010, [email-masked] wrote:
>>> [...]

James,
thanks for pointing that out.

My apologies -- a digit twister.    :-(
(Lazy fingers?  Tribute to too much work by late night?)

Of course -- and I hope it has been clear from the context anyway --
it should have been:

RFC 2782, "A DNS RR for Specifying the Location of Services (DNS SRV)"

BR,
  Alfred.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:28:14 +0200

> 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  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:39:21 -0700

> a lot of details that still need more work.

We addressed all items that were pending from the Hiroshima meeting. Can 
you be more specific in what you believe is missing from this doc?

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:47:48 -0700

Hi, all,

(from Alfred):
> We addressed all items that were pending from the Hiroshima meeting.

And the Anaheim meeting (this one actually had a 'to do' list of 
specific edits. And the Stockholm meeting. FWIW.

Joe