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.
I shall write this is a SHOULD - because we are unable to write a MUST
an absolute requirement for interoperability. In fact, implementors
need to do this for the SC mechanism to offer the real advantages in
port numbering that we envisage.
[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.
That was my mistake too :-(
Tom P.
