I think the getter ought to fall back to the protocol name.

In any case, this shouldn't be merged until you merge a spec release that has Service :-)

(In reply to comment #1)
> I think the getter ought to fall back to the protocol name.
Done
 
> In any case, this shouldn't be merged until you merge a spec release that has
> Service :-)
By you, you mean me? hehe. I am waiting for a spec release to release this :D

I think the fallback to protocol name should be documented, because it differs from the spec.

And it'd be nice if there were a test.

Otherwise looks good!

(In reply to comment #3)
> I think the fallback to protocol name should be documented, because it differs
> from the spec.
> 
> And it'd be nice if there were a test.
> 
> Otherwise looks good!

Pushed an updated doc for serviceName() and add a test for it.

ship it!

Merged upstream. It will be in next release 0.3.6.