Re: [tsvwg] service names - one registry vs. two registries

[Ted Hardie <ted.ietf at gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert at nokia.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Well, it certainly seems valuable to me to distinguish between the
cases where you can expect to use SRV and those you cannot (the same
for NAPTR or UNAPTR or DDDS).  Whether you distinguish that by a field
in a single registry or by having multiple registries which don't have
overlapped names kind of doesn't make that big a difference to my way
of thinking.

regards,

Ted