Re: New draft :draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-01.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'd be fine with a SHOULD.

Eddie


Phelan, Tom wrote:
Hi Eddie,

One question on your comments:
3

=> "This section explicitly updates RFC 4340 as follows:

    "A DCCP implementation MUST allow multiple applications using
    different DCCP service codes to listen on the same server port.

    A DCCP implementation SHOULD provide a method that informs a
server
    of the Service Code value that was selected by an active
connection."
"
==> I disagree with the first requirement, the MUST.  That is too
harsh
and I
see no need for it.  I like the second requirement.

[Tom P.] I couldn't track what Gorry and you agreed to on this in the
subsequent trail -- I assume you'd like that first requirement to be a
SHOULD instead of a MUST.  I think that's OK but I'd object to making it
a MAY or removing it.

Tom P.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]

  Powered by Linux