> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@xxxxxxx] > > On 1/20/2016 5:47 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > Having been involved in the creation of a few registries, I think that > > the designation of the registry should be determined by the Internet > > architecture rather than the personal taste of the people who wrote > > the specs. > > The specs are the result of either individual contributions or IETF process. In > the former case, who else should be involved? In the latter case, the entire > community is already involved in the review of the proposed registry > management procedures. I don't see it that way. Part of the problem with IETF process is that every working group tends to be left to choose its own color to paint its bikeshed when many times it would be a lot easier if there was at least some guidance. The design of the Internet is supposed to be guided by a very specific set of principles, namely simplicity and stability at the core, anarchy and chaos at the edges. If those are what we accept as the principles it follows that we should not get in the way of innovation at the edges without very good reason. One of those very good reasons right now is the fact that assigned port numbers are a finite and dwindling resource. The point of the proposal to use SRV and .well-known in combination is to provide a direct replacement for an assigned port number that works for a very large fraction of the problem space (most new protocols are built on HTTP even if they don't call themselves Web Services).