Re: service names - one registry vs. two registries

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:33:54AM +0900, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 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.

I remember discussing this with others before.  The GSS service name
registry is rarely updated, but people do use service names that don't
appear there.

> > Ideally what I'd like to see is something like this:
> 
> We _could_ certainly to this merge. I'd be interested to hear if others think if that makes sense.

Well, you're trying to merge at least two registries, no?  I think it
makes sense to merge the GSS-API service name registry in too.

> > 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.

I think it'd be nice to have a way to write registration rules with some
formalism.  Right now we lack that.  I don't care what the language is
that we use for this.

Nico
--