Subject: [VCARDDAV] Lars DISCUSS on draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:38:31 +0100

Lars Eggert wrote:
> Discuss:
>
> Section 11., paragraph 2:
>   
>>    This specification adds two service types for use with SRV records:
>>     
>   DISCUSS: There currently isn't a way to register only a service name
>   with IANA without at the same time also registering a port number. (It
>   will be once draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports is IESG-approved.) We should
>   discuss during the telechat how to handle this case.
After discussing this on IESG telechat, there are 3 options to address this:

1). Register the new service names as aliases for ports 80/443
2). Register 2 new port numbers
3). Don't do any change in this area, wait for 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports to get published.

I would like to hear WG opinion on the choices.

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:51:42 -0400

Hi Alexey,

> I would like to hear WG opinion on the choices.

My opinion is (3). (2) is totally inappropriate and (1) seems a little odd.

There is a fourth option: pull the SRV type definition out of CardDAV (so 
it is non-blocking) and put it in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-srv-caldav> which (along with 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-srv-email>) could reasonably block 
on the proper iana-ports registry document. Even with that I still prefer 
(3).

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:50 -0400

> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports to get published.

3 is the way to go.

Naive suggestion: I think IANA will merge its port-numbers with Stuart
Cheshire's list once draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports is published. Why not add the
SRV in that list until then?

Simon
-- 
DNS64 open-source   --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server    --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0           --> http://www.vcarddav.org

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:04:47 -0400

Hi Simon,

--On October 22, 2009 3:30:50 PM -0400 Simon Perreault 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Cheshire's list once draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports is published. Why not
> add the SRV in that list until then?

SRVs are scattered around all over the place. Stuart's list is one place, 
several RFCs also define some. At this point it would only confuse matters 
to have it in two places. The authors of iana-ports are fully aware that 
they need to go through RFCs and Stuarts data to pre-populate the new 
registry.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:50:20 +0200

> I would like to hear WG opinion on the choices.
(3) Don't waste resources with (2) just because a document isn't 
approved.  (1) doesn't have meaning in the context of IANA.

Eliot

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:41:58 +0300

> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports to get published.

Small correction: for (3), we "only" need to wait until that doc is  
IESG-approved, because the new IANA guidelines take effect then.

Lars

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:53:23 -0400

3) seems to me the only good solution.

Marc.

Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
> _______________________________________________
> VCARDDAV mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:24:13 +0200

Hi,

There is a fourth option that I think will result in a reasonable
action. I know that Lars and I aren't agreeing on this. But, putting
things into the "Protocols and Services" registry appears to be a valid
action for registering a service name. That would not consume any port
space, it will end up in the joint service name registry when the
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports becomes IESG approved. At least according to
the new version that will be submitted on Monday.

I know this can be interpreted as confusing, and that is because the
situation is confusing. But based on the feedback so far, you don't want
to be entered into the port registry. Thus the alternatives are either
to block until we have the registries sorted out, or put it into the
"Protocol and Service" registry.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------