Eliot Lear wrote: > In thinking about this some more if we end up with a TCPMUX like > approach for TCP, how shall UDP, SCTP, et al be handled? Is it okay to > handle them differently? I'm addressing this in the draft (in progress). UDP can't support the idea; there's no option space.The alternative would be to reserve a port and assume that bytes after the UDP header always have the portname, but that seems like a bad idea (interferes with the separation of header and data supported by DMA, e.g.) SCTP and DCCP probably can handle a similar option, but that would be addressed in separate documents. Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf