OK -- looks good. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:28 AM > To: Phelan, Tom > Cc: dccp >> 'dccp' working group > Subject: Re: Working group last call for service codes - reply > > Phelan, Tom wrote: > > 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? > > > We spoke in one meeting about RTP-relays and such like, but as I recall > we decided that it would not be a good idea to go down this rat-hole of > defining specific actions for such things - just to say NATs and > firewalls MUST NOT change the SC. > > >> 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. > > > Done. > > >>> 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"? > > > OK. > > Changed to /is/ (and one similar clause also set to present tense). > > >>> 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? > > > > I do not have anything to add. > > Gorry
