On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > > On 29/02/2016 22:27, John R Levine wrote: > >> The existing port and service registry already has all of the _service >> names, and is updated as people invent new services. What's the benefit >> of duplicating it rather than just pointing to it? > > +1 > > [and this is pretty much the proposal I made to Dave back in Orlando...]
+1 The use of the Service registry is pretty well established now and it is the right model. Creating additional registries is not something that should be encouraged unless the registry is describing a new type of resource that doesn't have a registry already. The proliferation of cryptographic algorithm registries is not at all helpful. I was rather peeved that the JOSE people were allowed to create yet another registry for algorithm label names rather than reuse the PEM registry. When you look at code that supports multiple cryptographic applications, there are endless layers of code managing tagging and bagging. I would really like to see the .well-known registry killed off as well and folded into the services registry. If you have a Web Service with SRV prefix _mmm then the .well-known prefix should be .well-known/mmm/ If you have two registries for the same thing you are creating unnecessary opportunities for ambiguity and inconsistency. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
