service names - one registry vs. two registries

[Lars Eggert <lars.eggert at nokia.com>]

Hi,

as just briefly discussed in the APP area meeting after Joe's  
presentation, we need to come to some community consensus on what to  
do with service name registrations.

draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports has been written with the intent to unify  
the three(*) current places where service names can be registered,  
making the ports and service names registry the one-stop shop for  
ports and service names. All service names (~10K?) registered in one  
of the current three places would be grandfathered in.

draft-gudmundsson-dns-srv-iana-registry advocates a creating new  
standalone registry for service names that are to be used with DNS SRV  
RRs (exclusively, in my reading) and seed it with only those 40  
service names that are specifically called out in published RFCs.  
There is no discussion on how the new registry relates to the three(*)  
existing places where service names have currently been registered.

(Disclaimer: I'm an author of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports, so you  
should read the two documents to form your own opinion on the  
different proposals.)

So far, the discussion has mostly seen arguments from the proponents  
of both approaches. It would be useful to hear from the broader  
community on which general approach is preferable.

Lars

(*)
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names
http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature