Re: service names - one registry vs. two registries

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

Hi,

On 2009-11-10, at 2:41, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> I think a single registry is better than N similar ones, even though one
> could always impose rules on the alternative such that collisions are
> minimized.
> 
> I would also add that there are other service name registries in the
> IANA that you should consider folding in here.  The one I'm thinking of
> is the GSS-API service name registry.

I'm CC'ing Pasi, because we have discussed the GSS-API registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/gssapi-service-names) in the past and concluded that because the use case is much more constrained, a separate registry for those few GSS-enabled services makes sense.

> Ideally what I'd like to see is something like this:
> 
>  +------------+--------+-------+-------+-------+
>  |Service     | SRV    |Default|Aliases|is GSS?|
>  | Name       |label   | Port  |       |       |
>  +------------+--------+-------+-------+-------+
>  | foo        | _foo   | 12345 |<none> | No    |
>  +------------+--------+-------+-------+-------+
>  | bar        |        | 23456 |foobar | Yes   |
>  +------------+--------+-------+-------+-------+
>  | ...        | ...    | ...   |...    | ...   |
>  +------------+--------+-------+-------+-------+

We _could_ certainly to this merge. I'd be interested to hear if others think if that makes sense.

> Perhaps a SQL model would help: ?

I think IANA has an XML format for the new table (Michelle?) Since that is somewhat internal to IANA's operation and can change for operational reasons without the procedures changing, we didn't include it in the draft. We could, if folks think it'd be useful.

Lars

> 
> CREATE TABLE services (canon_name TEXT PRIMARY KEY UNIQUE,
> 		       srv_label  TEXT UNIQUE,
> 		       def_port   INTEGER UNIQUE CHECK(def_port < 32768),
> 		       is_GSS     BOOLEAN
> 			   CHECK(is_gss = 'true' OR is_gss = 'false'));
> 
> CREATE TABLE aliases  (alias_name TEXT PRIMARY KEY UNIQUE,
> 		       canon_name TEXT,
> 		       FOREIGN KEY (canon_name)
> 		       REFERENCES services (canon_name));
> 
> (I didn't include CHECKs for name and srv_label, but, you get the
> point.  I'm using SQLite3 syntax here, specificially w.r.t. type names.
> I also didn't capture the need for aliases to be unique relative to
> service canonical names.)
> 
> Nico
> --

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