Subject: [DNSOP] SRV Protocol Label Registry

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:47:05 -0800

Hello,

RFC 2782 defines the following format for the SRV RR:

  _Service._Proto.Name

RFC 3263 defines SRV lookups of _sip._tcp.example.com.  Can _sip be 
registered in a Label registry as a protocol that provides services 
such as _bip._sip.example.com?

Regards,
-sm

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:53:21 +0100 (MEZ)

Folks,
I apologize for cross-posting, but a post to DNSOP has touched
a topic arguably in scope for DNSEXT, the 'home' of RFC 2782.

At Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:47:05 -0800, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> RFC 3263 defines SRV lookups of _sip._tcp.example.com.
> Can _sip be registered in a Label registry as a protocol
> that provides services such as _bip._sip.example.com?

No -- currently !     :-(

Unfortunately, at present, it can't, for the simple reason that
RFC 2782 had overlooked establishing such IANA Registry, and
nobody had undertaken this effort since!  :-)

Because of recurring need observed in various WGs for having such
registry, shortly before IETF 73, Olafur Gudmunsson has started
such effort with draft-gudmundsson-dns-srv-registry-00.

I have contributed a bunch of material as possible additions to
that draft, providing evidence of existing usage defined in RFCs,
which reveals that until now, the following  _<protocol>  labels
already have been defined in the IETF, besides the 'classical'
names (tcp, udp):

             _ipv6, _xmpp, _http, _ldap, _ocsp .

IMHO, the scope of the draft needs to be expanded significantly,
and I have proposed changes and additions to the -00 draft before
IETF 73.

The DNS-SD community already had established a web page serving
a similar purpose, and draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05, as a
by-product, aims at establishing a similar registry based on that
web page (see the Refs there).  IMO, the scope of that inofficial
registry also would need to be expanded, and precision added.

Furthermore, RFC 3861 has established a very specialized registry
that conceivably could also be merged with a more general service
registry; at least, it must be coordinated to avoid collisions.

The proper strategy to structure the IANA Service Label [Pair]
registry, formalize the registration procedure, and establish the
initial registry content still remains to be worked out, and this
effort also needs to be coordinated with the IANA Considerations
for the Port Number IANA Registry draft being discussed in TSVWG,
because it should most preferably be avoided that confusion can
result from two independent service registries.

I support Olafur's vision that a properly and thoughtfully
founded Service Label IANA Registry might help overcome the
significant restrictions posed by the rather small Port Number
namespace, and might some time take over the role of a more
general and versatile service registry -- for those protocols
and services that reasonably can make use of DNS SRV and do not
have reasons for binding to a fixed server port.

> DNSOP at ietf.org

Best regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:53:21 +0100 (MEZ)

Folks,

No -- currently !     :-(

Best regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

--