> Simplest is in the eye of the beholder. We have implemented the -02 > behavior and the -03 behavior in the past. I would not agree that the -03 > behavior is simpler is any respect.
So we all have implemented the -03 behavior. Why changes are needed? The -03 behavior, which is almost same as existing RFC 2292 behavior, works fine even for receive only applications or with shutdown. I believe that the reason for recvmsg() raised in 2292bis was to trace the changes in extension headers and other parameters for receiving applications. But it is obviously impossible for TCP. So the only reason to keep -02 behavior would be similarity for UDP. Most of TCP applications is not so similar to UDP and required changes for existing TCP applications is minimum in -03, IMO. Atsushi Onoe -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
