Dear Ken McDonell:
Thank you for your submission for a user port number. Please resolved
the following questions before we can process your requests.
1. You only provided the following:
Reference:
[http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=pcp/pcp.git;a=blob;f=man/man3/pmwebapi.3;hb=HEAD]
URLs are useful, but they might not be available in the future and
can be edited at any given time. IESG requires that the technical
description shall be documented in the application for future
reference purposes. Please document the service in this template.
2. Please explain why multiple allocations 44321, 44322, 44323 & 44324
are necessary. You may reply to this ticket for the current requests.
Thank you,
Pearl Liang
ICANN/IANA
On Tue May 07 13:52:09 2013, kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Application for a Port Number and/or Service Name
>
> Assignee: Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) Project <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Contact Person: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Resource Request:
>
> [x] Port Number
> [x] Service Name
>
> Transport Protocols:
> [x] TCP
> [ ] UDP
> [ ] SCTP
> [ ] DCCP
>
> Service Code: []
> Service Name: [pmwebapi]
> Desired Port Number: [44323]
> Description: [HTTP binding for Performance Co-Pilot client
> API]
>
> Reference:
> [http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-
> bin/gitweb.cgi?p=pcp/pcp.git;a=blob;f=man/man3/pmwebapi.3;hb=HEAD]
>
> Defined TXT Keys:
>
> 1. If broadcast/multicast is used, how and what for?
> [Not used.]
>
> 2. If UDP is requested, please explain how traffic is limited, and
> whether the
> protocol reacts to congestion.
> []
>
> 3. If UDP is requested, please indicate whether the service is solely
> for the discovery of hosts supporting this protocol.
> []
>
> 4. Please explain how your protocol supports versioning.
> [By versioning of the URL prefix, /pmapi, future incompatible pmwebapi
> revisions will have their own namespace.]
>
> 5. If your request is for more than one transport, please explain in
> detail how the protocol differs over each transport.
> [N/A]
>
> 6. Please describe how your protocol supports security. Note that
> presently
> there is no IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a
> second port
> for an insecure version of a protocol.
> [As the session layer is HTTP, its security properties inform ours.
> Within the application layer, authentication will be provided via
> HTTP, and inter-client confidentiality is provided via private
> session identifiers.]
>
> 7. Please explain the state of development of your protocol.
> [Implementation and testing is well advanced. The next PCP version
> 3.8 is scheduled to release a first version of pmwebapi.
> ]
>
> 8. If SCTP is requested, is there an existing TCP and/or UDP service
> name or
> port number assignment? If yes, provide the existing service name
> and port number.
> []
>
> 9. What specific SCTP capability is used by the application such that
> a
> user who has the choice of both TCP (and/or UDP) and SCTP ports
> for
> this application would choose SCTP? See RFC 4960 section 7.1.
> []
>
> 10. Please provide any other information that would be helpful in
> understanding how this protocol differs from existing assigned
> services.
> [The pmwebapi protocol bridges the existing PCP pmcd wire protocol
> (44321/tcp) to an HTTP client, much like any other HTTP/REST
> application binding. pmcd is long-term connection-oriented, whereas
> pmwebapi uses connections for individual operations.]
>
>
|