Subject: Additional registries converted to XML and announcement of new registry for Service Names and Port Numbers

From: Michelle Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:26:24 -0700

IETF Community:

This is a message for your information.

Last year we archived some legacy text files and notified the IETF community which ones those were.  This is follow-up message with a new set of registries that have been both converted and archived.  A total of 78% of the registries we maintain have been converted to xml.

We will repeat this step again in January 2012 with the registries that we convert between July 21, 2011 and December 31, 2011.

Attention:  We recently combined and converted the Service Names and Port Numbers registry in accordance with a recently approved document to become an RFC.  The legacy registries will be maintained for 2 more weeks so that anyone running scripts or gathering information can adjust/update what they need to.

Legacy URLs:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names/service-names.xml
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

NEW URL:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xml

We are aware that the new registry is very slow to load in some browsers and we are working on resolving the speed issue.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,

Michelle Cotton
Manager, IETF Relations - IANA
ICANN

List of Registries that have been converted to XML between June 30, 2010 and July 20, 2011:

 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-data-collection-communities-std
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/channel-binding-types/
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/eapsimaka-numbers
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/eappotp-identifiers
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/inst-man-values
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/integ-serv
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipp-registrations
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-anycast-addresses
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/isns-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/idxp-options
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/mtqp-options
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/milnet-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-id-type
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/text-directory-registrations
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/pppoe-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/public-data-network-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rmt-fec-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/svrloc-cryptographic-bsd
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/svrloc-error-numbers
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-table
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-priv-values
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-environment-items
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/snmp-number-spaces
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sun-rpc-numbers
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-header-flags
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:13:18 +0300

Hello,

The new registry says:

>   System Ports are assigned by IETF
>   process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC1340].  User Ports
>   are assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" process, as per
>   [RFC5226].  Dynamic Ports are not assigned.

I don't understand referencing RFC 1340 here.  You could better change 
this to "System Ports are assigned per "Standards Action" or "IESG 
Approval" process, as per [RFC5226]".  IESG Approval is assumed by the 
RFC-to-be, Section 8.1:

>     o  Reserved numbers and names are generally only assigned by a
>        Standards Action or an IESG Approval,

Also, the new registry doesn't seem to match the following rule:

>     The new assignment procedure
>     conserves resources by assigning a port number to an application for
>     only those transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP and/or DCCP) it
>     actually uses.  The port number will be marked as Reserved - instead
>     of Assigned - in the port number registries of the other transport
>     protocols.

Such entries as:

> tcpmux               1         tcp    TCP Port Service Multiplexer [Mark_Lottor]                       [Mark_Lottor]
> tcpmux               1         udp    TCP Port Service Multiplexer [Mark_Lottor]                       [Mark_Lottor]

should be:

> tcpmux               1         tcp    TCP Port Service Multiplexer [Mark_Lottor]                       [Mark_Lottor]
> tcpmux               1         udp    TCP Port Service Multiplexer [Mark_Lottor]                       [Mark_Lottor]
>                       1        sctp    Reserved
>                       1        dccp    Reserved

etc.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

22.07.2011 6:26, Michelle Cotton wrote:
>
> Attention:  We recently combined and converted the Service Names and 
> Port Numbers registry in accordance with a recently approved document 
> to become an RFC.  The legacy registries will be maintained for 2 more 
> weeks so that anyone running scripts or gathering information can 
> adjust/update what they need to.
>
> Legacy URLs:
> We are aware that the new registry is very slow to load in some 
> browsers and we are working on resolving the speed issue.
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:04:24 -0700

On 7/23/2011 3:13 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> I don't understand referencing RFC 1340 here.

1340 defines system vs. user ports.

You're right; it should refer to RFC 5226 there instead.

 > You could better change
> Approval" process, as per [RFC5226]".

That's OK.

> IESG Approval is assumed by the
> RFC-to-be, Section 8.1:
>

The above text isn't needed.

>> tcpmux               1         udp    TCP Port Service Multiplexer [Mark_Lottor]                       [Mark_Lottor]

Yes. This is already the case for TCP/UDP entries, but we should be 
consistent with sctp and dccp.

Joe