On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:31:41AM +0100, gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Suggested Change: If user doesn't want to set a service code, that's fine, > leave the service code associated with connection at 0. I totally agree with you on this, but I have been killed when suggesting this on dccp@xxxxxxxxx > Justification: > In a forthcoming communication to SIGCOMM-06, the inventors of DCCP say that > they were "motivated by keeping the basic API as simple as UDP's" and that > "DCCP should provide applications with an API as simple as that of UDP". I think the same authors killed me on this point. I believe their motivation is "we want service codes to be used" and that they are a useful thing. I agree with them, but I don't agree on "forcing the users to use service codes". In practice, I think the situation will end up just as you described: programmers will say "what is a service code?" and all weird things will start emerging by people setting random codes just to get their application working. Indeed, question 1 of Linux's DCCP FAQ will end up being: "connect() returns error HELP! Did you set a SC?". Most of the initial DCCP applications will be test apps anyway, and I think the burden of "inventing" a service code or assigning one should be avoided. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
