Hi Eddie,
many thanks for the references and comments; please see inline.
- Gerrit
| * I think service codes should be part of the sockaddr for DCCP. The decision
| to make them a setsockopt() I think has made things harder. From 9/9/05:
|
| > I agree with Arnaldo et al. here. The Service Code should be considered
| similar to a port. It is best to specify it at bind() time, rather than
| separately. The structure names may want some updating; sockaddr_in_dccp and
| sockaddr_in6_dccp, rather than sockaddr_dccp, for example. The servicecode
| member should finish off the structure, so that sockaddr_in is a prefix of
| sockaddr_in_dccp. And the code should be smart enough to supply a 0 service
| code if the sa_len corresponds to sockaddr_in instead of sockaddr_in_dccp.
I think the idea is good, but find the realisation problematic:
* sockaddr_in{,6}_dccp would be a special API exception, TCP/UDP use sockaddr_in/6,
all other sockaddr_xxx types are indexed by layer-3 name.
* since servers may multiplex different services over the same port, this would
mean that sockaddr_dccp contains a variable-length list - which may be at odds
with the maximum length of sockaddr_storage.
* would make integration with v4/v6 getaddrinfo() difficult. The glibc function
getaddrinfo() does not yet support DCCP (nor UDP-Lite), but the conversion/
upgrade is in principle simple(r) if sockaddr_in/6 are used, as the basic socket
API can be retained.
Why not achieve the same by providing a library call which takes port number,
service number, v4/v6 address as argument and returns a connected/listening socket
handle? Maybe there is even potential for providing a library call for well-known
services such as get_service_and_port_by_name(), but all this leads far away from
what I actually was concerned about.
| * I am fine with the default service code being 0. 11/23/05:
|
| > Again, there's always Service Code 0, which "represents the absence of a
| meaningful Service Code". This should be the default, if you desperately want
| a default.
Yes, this is exactly what I meant to ask - if an application really has no present use
for a service code, then give it the default. All other applications will have to
consider the spec, RFC 4340, from which it is clear what to provide.
| * I am NOT fine, and have never been fine, with 0 acting as a *wildcard* in
| any way. Service code 0 acts like a specific service code in every way: if a
| Request with Service Code 1 arrived at a listening socket with Service Code 0,
| then the Request would be rejected with Bad Service Code. Likewise, if a
| Request with SC 0 arrived at a listening socket with SC 1, the Request would
| be rejected with Bad Service Code.
The main concern was to simplify the socket programming API, while remaining fully
conformant with RFC 4340; without implying any bad uses of default values.
| So to summarize, a default SC of 0 is fine, for either listening or active
| sockets, although we still think people should use real service codes. If the
| following comment suggests woildcarding, then that's not fine.
|
| > So as to not compromise listening sockets, I was thinking of treating an
| `uninitialized' 0 on a server socket different from a service code = 0 which
| has been explicitly set by the application.
That was my fault, the comment was a bit ill-formulated and clarified by one look
at the sources - it considered safely overriding the uninitialised service code state,
not wildcarding.
-
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
