Hi Gorry, See inline for comments on comments :-). Sorry it took so long :-(. Tom P. [snipped] > I added a ref in 3.2: > NEW: > Network address and port translators, known collectively as NATs > [RFC2663], may interpret DCCP ports [RFC2993] [ID.Behave-DCCP]. > > I also updated bullet 2 to explicitly refer to this: > NEW: > o A middlebox that does not modify the intended application (e.g. NATs > [ID.Behave-DCCP] and Firewalls), MUST NOT change the Service Code. [Tom P] Is this a hypothetical situation -- are there any examples of middle boxes that *change* one application into another, different application? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? > I have currently made this a normative reference - since this is a PS > that speaks of a specific mechanism that is important for SC use and > dedicated to DCCP, but I could make it informative if you think this > better reflects the citation. [Tom P] Normative reference sounds right to me. > > Section 3.3.1 (mostly editorial, but maybe technical): > > "If the receiving host is listening on a server port and the > > DCCP-Request uses a Service Code previously associated with the port" -- > > Would "uses a Service Code *currently* associated with the port" be > > clearer? The current wording seems to suggest that any SC that was ever > > associated with a port is OK. > > > Aha, I now suggest: > OLD: > uses a Service Code currently associated > NEW: > uses a Service Code that has been associated [Tom P] That wording seems to me to say the same thing -- that any SC ever associated with the port should be accepted. How about "uses a Service Code that *is* associated"? > > Section 3.3.3 (technical): > > So what should be the identifier in dccp-inetd? Just a port or just an > > SC or a port and an SC (the last, for my thinking)? I think that should > > be specified here. I think you try to specify this in the last > > paragraph, but it seems unclear to me. > > > OK, well spotted - this is vague, but intentional. I hedged away from > detail on the inetd discussion (after various iterations with Eddie and > Mark). I do not have much to say from the OS point of view - I guess I > was thinking of driving this from some of file/database with SC and port. [Tom P] So is there an action here?
