On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
On 2016-01-18 23:07, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
1) It is quite possible that following current registration practices,
someone else might apply for mmm and the registration would be
granted. And then my only recourse might be a lawsuit.
...
How does "First-Come-First-Serve" make that better? Doesn't it even make it
worse?
My proposal was to abolish the .well-known registry altogether and use
the Well Known Ports and Services registry for both. So my
registration of MMM in one, automatically registers mmm in the other.
This is incidentally how the SRV registry went away. There were drafts
circulating proposing a registry for years. I think there was even a
registry created at one point. But people thought
about the problem and realized that the best and simplest approach is
to have one registry.
There are only 24 .well-known registrations today. Merging the
registries would not be difficult.
Just create Well Known Port & Service entries for the few code points
that don't have one already.
But even if that doesn't happen, it is fairly easy to make requests
for both registries simultaneously if they are FCFS.
2) I may not be able to provide the specification, either because the
protocol is experimental or proprietary.
...
"Experimental", as far as I understand, isn't a problem per se.
Best regards, Julian